Writing in Reason, Alex Stevenson reviews a debate about continued UK participation in the European Union (EU). Stevenson gives a useful overview of a new British political party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and he questions whether participation in the EU is relevant to libertarianism. Stevenson holds on to an antiquated left-right dichotomy: He reasons that in the past the left opposed the EU, so there is no reason for libertarians to oppose it now. He claims that centralization is not a libertarian issue.
Bertrand de Jouvenal's On Power outlines the emergence of the unitary state from the decentralized fiefdoms of the Middle Ages. De Jouvenal shows that a decline in freedom coincided with the growth of the unitary state under Louis XIV, the Sun King, and Henry VIII, and continued centralization led to further diminution of freedom. In his Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard shows that 17th century mercantilism in Spain, France, and the UK led to inefficient, anti-libertarian outcomes.
The dream of a centralized Europe goes back to the Romans, the inventors of the mixed economy and government-business partnerships. Today's European and American economies are modernized versions of Rome, and the blessings of modernity were largely developed in the United States and Great Britain before the current, antique levels of centralization emerged.
Looking at the big picture, Charlemagne's conquest of much of Europe and Hitler's Third Reich were halting attempts to reestablish Rome. The EU is a third attempt. No attempt, including the EU, has been libertarian in nature. Centralization of power is neither left nor right, but it is anti-libertarian because centralization of power leads to abuse of power. It does so because citizens in a large, centralized state face high costs of organization, so protest becomes difficult. In contrast, compact special interests with access to the central bank and high benefits per capita from organization can organize efficiently. Centralization leads to skewed outcomes that benefit elite interests. Smaller scale increases the benefit per capita from organization by general citizens. Citizens' monitoring of and resistance to special interests increases as the scale of government decreases.
In the UK the Whigs began as the country party, and they originated many libertarian ideas. In the US the Whig Party, which used the country party's name, was a court party and a reaction to Andrew Jackson's democratic and libertarian views. By Jackson's time the courtly Federalists and country anti-Federalists were gone, but remnants of the anti-Federalists' views survived, including in the South, so when South Carolina threatened to secede in 1832 over its demand to nullify the Tariff of Abominations, Jackson threatened them with military force.
Jackson, then, was no libertarian, but he was too libertarian for the remnant of the Federalist Party, which Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln's mentor, led by the 1820s. In 1832 Clay founded the Whig Party, the party of a centralized bank, centralized power, subsidized banks, subsidized railroads, increased tariffs, big government, public works, and government waste.
The American Whigs have always claimed to be for freedom: Today's Republicans, like Mark Levin and Mitt Romney, continue to claim so just as today's Democrats continue to call themselves "liberals," a term that had been applied to libertarians in America until the 1890s.
While claiming to favor freedom, the Whigs--both today's Democrats and today's Republicans--are anti-libertarian, while a minority of decentralizers has tended to be libertarian. The reason that decentralization fosters liberty even when some of the smaller units adopt anti-libertarian policies is that government cannot be measured as just a quantity. The government that governs least is not the most libertarian government if it is imposed by force; it is fundamental to Lockean libertarianism that government be derived from the consent of the governed.
A government that governs an increasingly large population finds that it has a decreasing ability to derive consent from the governed. If America had conquered the heart of Mexico instead of just California and Texas, it would have imposed less government on the Mexicans than they have since imposed on themselves. Nevertheless, as Thoreau points out in Civil Disobedience, such an action would not have been libertarian because it would have involved force rather than consent. As the scope of a governed territory grows, the likelihood of consent diminishes. A single government cannot represent the diverse needs of a large number of people. In 1787 America had three million, mostly Christian, mostly white, mostly English citizens. The governments of about half of today's states govern larger, more diverse populations.
In economic terms there is only one real-world governmental utility curve; it reflects the sum of public choices about government's use of violence. At the same time each citizen has his own utility curve, and culturally convergent groups, nations, communities, and peoples share utilities, so the distance from each individual's utility curve to the government curve is smaller under self-rule than it would be if strangers were to impose their values from without.
The imposition of an American state, albeit with a lesser quantity of government, would have been more divergent from the Mexicans' preferences than the Mexicans' own government has been even though there would have been less government under American imperialism. Hence, less can be more. In the same way, the imposition of a centralized state on diverse Europeans leads to greater divergence from each group's preferences than would exist under decentralized, nationalist rule. Scale increases coercion.
Decentralization not only leads to freedom because it leads to competition among governments, but it also leads to freedom because of a greater likelihood that a given government will reflect its citizens' preferences. The EU, like Rome, imposes a unitary set of preferences on all of its citizens. The sum of the distances of the preferences from the stated policy is greater than would be under a greater number of decentralized states.
As the power of Brussels increases, additional threats to liberty will emerge. The centralization of power will lead, as it did in the United States, to suppression of consent. Suppression of consent in the United States led, within four decades after the Civil War, to suppression of a wide range of rights, and within five decades to the founding of a central bank, an income tax, and an imperialistic foreign policy linked to the central bank and the income tax.
The Whigs, who in the post-Civil War, Mugwump era claimed to be libertarians, had ended government by the consent of the governed through the Civil War; they have since relentlessly extended the scope and power of the state, just as de Jouvenal describes. (De Jouvenal discusses FDR toward the end of his monumental work.) For the past 120 years Whig liberalism has amounted to government by experts who shape and control public opinion through a centralized media and enforce special interests' dictates to a manipulated majority.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Libertarian. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Libertarian. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, April 5, 2014
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.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Wes Benedict Responds Concerning Racism in the Libertarian Party
I was pleased to receive an email from Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, indicating that the LP has become concerned about infiltration by racists and
has issued a formal statement. I have copied his email, which includes a
link to the statement, and part of the statement:
From: Wes Benedict
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:08 PM
To: Mitchell Langbert
Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism, Racism, and the LP
Hi Mr. Langbert,
Did you see the piece I put out last
week?
I think that makes it clear we're
aware of some racists and anti-Semitism in and close to the Libertarian Party
and we are driving them out.
Thanks for your support.
Wes
Benedict, Executive Director
The statement starts as follows:
The Libertarian Party condemns bigotry as irrational and
repugnant, and offers its condolences to the family of the woman killed in
Charlottesville, Va.
There is no room for racists and bigots in the Libertarian
Party. If there are white nationalists who — inappropriately — are members of
the Libertarian Party, I ask them to submit their resignations today. We don’t
want them to associate with the Libertarian Party, and we don’t want their
money. I’m not expecting many resignations, because our membership already
knows this well.
The
Libertarian Party Platform states, “We condemn bigotry as irrational and
repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human
right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal
habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.”
The Libertarian Party is tolerant and accepting, supporting
civil liberties, gay marriage, and freedom of religion for all, including Jews,
Muslims, Christians, and atheists. The Libertarian Party supports open borders,
civil liberties, racial diversity, and free trade — things that white
nationalists abhor.
I think many people in America are worried about jobs and
security, and feel compelled to do something about it. Years of inflammatory
messaging from Republican and Democratic leadership have poisoned the well of
civil discourse, and unfortunately, much of what the extremists on both the
left and right are asking for will make matters worse.
Republican leaders have demonized immigrants and free trade,
and have scared people into thinking that free trade and immigration will cost
current citizens their jobs and their standard of living. Yet countries with
free trade and immigration have the highest standards of living in the world,
and those without freedom of movement and exchange have the lowest. If
politicians are truly interested in improving American prosperity, they need to
brush up on their understanding of “gains from trade” and “comparative
advantage,” then stop goading their supporters into supporting
counterproductive policies. Protectionist policies are irrational and cowardly,
and will make America weaker.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Optimism Abounds
The Campbell Apartment at Grand Central Station.My good friend Cortes DeRussy is optimistic about our economic future. In contrast to my pessimism over drinks and dinner two nights ago at the Campbell Apartment at Grand Central Station and Cafe Centro in the MetLife Building, Mr. DeRussy sent me the following quote from Alex Tabarrok writing in Forbes:
"People used to think that more population was bad for growth. In this view, people are stomachs--they eat, leaving less for everyone else. But once we realize the importance of ideas in the economy, people become brains--they innovate, creating more for everyone else.
"New ideas mean more growth, and even small changes in economic growth rates produce large economic and social benefits. At current income levels, with an inflation-adjusted growth rate of 3% per year, America's real per capita gross domestic product would exceed $1 million per year in just over 100 years, more than 22 times higher than it is today. Growth like that could solve many problems."
The Campbell Apartment and Cafe Centro illustrate free market change. The Campbell Apartment had been built as John W. Campbell's office and reception hall in Grand Central Station in the 1920s. Now it is a public bar and reception hall. Cafe Centro used to be Pan Am's airline ticket office. Now it is an excellent restaurant.
But is there reason for optimism? The past 40 years have seen the Fed's unrelenting expansion of the money supply despite reputed monetary policy change*; an increasing addiction to publicly manufactured credit; and virtually no movement toward repeal of the Progressive and New Deal regulatory regime. While liberals have mostly won on free trade, there is a strong impulse to revoke the gains and even stronger resistance to further progress. On balance, liberals have been successful on trade but failures with respect to money, permitting the Federal Reserve Bank to reallocate real resources in debtors' interest, in turn causing income inequality that the progressive-liberals now emphasize in agitating for additional taxes and regulation. Yet there is little movement toward further deregulation. The reason for lack of public debate about monetary inflation, which has caused serious disruption in countries like Germany, may be interest group capture of the Republican Party. The nation is reaching a stale mate. Future progress will require new strategies.
The US has been able grow, but there is no guarantee that growth can continue. How much misallocation is too much?
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has conceptualized a new scope for government regulation: personal wellness and fitness. Nationally, the emphasis is on adding environmental regulation. There is no impulse this year to discuss elimination of the massive waste in government in areas like the department of education.
Like Mr. DeRussy, David Boaz, head of the Cato institute, is optimistic. In response to my blog this morning on Mugwumps and libertarian strategy Mr. Boaz writes:
"I think Bill Niskanen would disagree with your suggestion that libertarians and conservatives haven’t had any effect. A couple of years ago he wrote, 'after a decade or so of gestation, almost all of the major economic policy proposals made during the past 30 years originated on the libertarian right'."
While I do not doubt that Messrs. Boaz and Niskanen are correct (and the Cato Institute has certainly been a crucial voice for reform), the reason is in no small part the Democratic Party's incompetence, with a resulting dearth of ideas. Naturally, the few good ones have come from the libertarian right, Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute.
Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies of the Cato Institute, also kindly responds to my blog. Mr. Cannon writes that the repeal of all campaign finance laws and instant-runoff voting are two changes that could improve libertarians' voice. He also notes a second Cato article by William Niskanen who 18 months ago offered the same idea that I proposed yesterday (although the Mugwumps beat Mr. Niskanen by 122 years):
"Increased outrage about the state of American politics and the prospect for a larger number of close elections increases the potential effectiveness of a different libertarian party — one that sometimes endorses one or the other major party candidate but does not run a party candidate for that position."
"The Libertarian Party’s efforts to promote their policy positions by running Libertarian candidates is counter-productive when they reduce the vote for their favored major party candidates. A disciplined group that is prepared to endorse one or the other major party candidate in a close election, however, can have a substantial effect on the issue positions of both major party candidates... conditions must be met to achieve this effectiveness...This is a strategy to increase the approval of libertarian policy positions rather than the usually counter-productive effort to increase the number of votes for Libertarian candidates. Maybe it is better to term the organization that I have described as a libertarian political action group, not a libertarian party."
Mr. Niskanen's idea is similar to what the Mugwumps did in the 1880s. It is true that there have been some policy successes, and perhaps I am unfairly pessimistic.
But where is the liberal momentum in this year of increasing inflation and monetary instability?
*Despite considerable PR about monetary targets, the inflation rate since 1979 has averaged 3.7%, considerably higher than it was before the establishment of the Fed in 1913. The 3.7% inflation rate may be understated because of exclusion of home purchase prices. At the same time, several foreign governments have acquired dollar denominated assets each equaling the total US money supply of $1.4 trillion.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Democratic versus Achievement Motives in American History
David M. Tucker. Mugwumps: Public Moralists of The Gilded Age. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1998. 139 pp.
David M. Tucker's Mugwumps: Public Moralists of the Gilded Age is an excellent overview of the Mugwumps. It is sympathetic to its subject, unlike others who have written about the Mugwumps. Phrases like "Old Right" abound in the post-war libertarian literature, but the image often is vague. Tucker's book shows that the 19th century classical liberals, known as independent Republicans, were former abolitionists, not bigots in any sense of the word (the few that turned out to be, such as Henry Adams ceased to be considered Mugwumps and became associated with Populism), and were very conscious of their libertarian ideology, their commitment to Adam Smith, the Manchester liberals and John Stuart Mill, with whom several corresponded. The Mugwumps were:
-A small movement, no larger than today's Libertarian Party as a percentage of the voting public, and probably smaller
-sharply differentiated from the two major parties in terms of their commitment to liberal or libertarian ideas, specifically tariff reduction (which the Democrats tended to support and the Republicans tended to oppose); hard money and the gold standard (which neither party really supported); and opposition to imperialism
-support for the newly formed (under the Pendleton Act) federal civil service, which they thought would end corruption in government and reduce the opportunity for spoils, which led the public to support corrupt government (in other words, they wanted to end special interest capture of government)
The book is very well written (although at times there could have been slightly better transitioning and linkage of ideas) and of serious interest to libertarians, conservatives, and those with an interest in the decline of morals in business and government.
Although the Mugwumps were the first post-industrial libertarian movement, they also were at the root of today's progressive-liberalism, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out. The effectiveness of their tactics, the use of social control and groupthink to effectuate a uniform party platform, served as a model to the next generation's emphasis on big government, imperialism and state intervention in the economy. Most of all, Mugwumps pioneered the use of groupthink as a political tactic. This has been copied not only by the progressive-liberals but also by today's Libertarian Party, which borrows the Mugwumps' appellation for the Republican Party, "the party of principle".
Tucker's perspective on the Mugwumps is sharply from John R. Dobson's Politics in the Gilded Age which I blog here. Tucker has more respect for the Mugwumps.
David Riesmann has argued that in the twentieth century Americans turned from a 19th century inner directedness that involves a goal and future orientation to an other directedness that involves a focus on peers, influence from popular media, fashion and interpersonal relationships at work. But the tension between these two impulses was already evident in the 1870s.
Several of the Mugwumps, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, sacrificed their Mugwump ideals for conformity to the Republicans' political demands. They refused to join the other Mugwumps in exiting the Republican Party in 1884. Both Roosevelt and Lodge had much more successful political careers than the other Mugwumps because they put politics over principle, and they did so by adopt the other-directed progressive-liberal ideas of the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt may be thought of as the first other-directed American.
A few of the Mugwumps, such as Henry Adams, who rejected Mugwumpery in favor of anti-Semitism, Populism and free silver (Tucker suggests that the Adamses' exit from Mugwumpery was related to their failure in real estate speculation in Spokane and Kansas City and their hope for a silver inflation). Henry Adams became a Populist who blamed Jewish bankers for his business failings.
The most effective Mugwumps were those who played off the two-party system, favoring one or the other party depending on who was following the most libertarian course. They became famous for this in 1884, when they contributed to the defeat of James G. Blaine in favor of Grover Cleveland, who was a largely libertarian president.
The Mugwumps ran only two independent candidates in their roughly 35-year history: Horace Greeley of the Liberal Republicans in 1872 and John M. Palmer of the National Democrats in 1895. Neither fared well. There is a lesson for the Libertarian Party here. The LP would function more effectively as an election spoiler than as an independent political party.
The Mugwumps (or Independent Republicans) were mostly upper class northeasterners, mainly from New England and New York. They tended to have been educated in religious, Protestant schools and to have had a strong moral sense. Many were former abolitionists. They were not religious themselves, but their grounding and education was. They were concerned with the decay of morals in American politics, and were inclined to foresake personal gain and office on behalf of their ideals, which did not match their economic interests. In other words, many of them benefited from paper money and inflation, but they opposed it on moral grounds, and the same is true of tariffs. Many left wing historians, who lack grounding in economics and ethics, look for class or personal motives in the Mugwumps' position. Ironically, support for inflation, free silver, greenbacks and Keynesian economics is very much the position that favors the upper class, banking interests, Wall Street, hedge fund billionaires, large coroporations and corporate executvies. It was Theodore Roosevelt who benefited from his cynical adoption of progressive-liberalism, the ideology of the American upper class from 1900 to 2007. EL Godkin, Carl Schurz, Horace White and the other Mugwumps paid dearly for their idealistic commitment to morality in politics. The fact that historians have often treated them shabbily suggests shabbines in academia more than anything else.
The Independent Republicans had one advantage over today's libertarians and conservatives: the intellectual support of mainstream universities. Relatively few Americans were capable of thinking through monetary issues even in the 1870s. Today, probably even a smaller percentage of the population is willing to expend the effort to do so. However, when the Mugwumps could say that their ideas had the backing of Harvard economists, the public was much more likely to defer. In this sense, they provided a role model to today's progressive-liberals, who dominate our society through their control of higher education. This intrigues me because it suggests a tighter link between the ideology of higher education, economic interests and what Howard S. Katz calls "the paper aristocracy" than I used to think.
The Mugwumps had limited data on which to base their arguments, and they fell into a number of errors. The most grievous Mugwumps fell were their support for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and their belief that the civil service would end special interest politics and government corruption. Their emphasis on the Fed came from three factors: (1) they believed that the Fed would be constrained by the gold standard, which Roosevelt abolished in the 1930s; (2) they believed that separating money from politics would reduce the temptation to inflate (they overrated the institutional separation of the Fed from Congress; (3) they did not anticipate Keynesian economics, which provided an ideological rationale for the inflationist view which (not to blame them, who could would have known?).
Their notions of morality led to their belief in free trade, the gold standard and honest government, notably via civil service reform. Their advocacy of sound money and free trade, which they explicitly linked to the elimination of special privilege, favoritism for the rich (the debtor class, according to their arguments, being the chief beneficiaries of paper money, then as now) was explicitly rooted in their moral sense. They saw individual achievement, self sufficiency and hard work as moral principles that protectionism and paper money would debase.
Then as now there were powerful forces arrayed against moralist and hard money positions. There was strong western agitation for greenbacks and then silver inflation by landowners (much as the subprime crisis today has been a strong motivation of reallocation of wealth to wealthy investment bankers and landowners), and politicians were inclined to support the demands for inflation. In fact, there were several greenback and free silver bills passed, that Mugwump agitation was able to stop, and some that the Mugwumps could not stop.
The Mugwumps saw the debate as one involving moral principle against personal gain. Those who favored personal gain over morals joined the regular party ranks. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, are cited as two examples of reformers who chose to emphasize their careers as opposed to their morals. When James G. B
Gain in democracatic politics is linked to popular appeal. Hence other directedness results from focus on public opinion. However, the advances in American society came not from the political but from the creative, scientific, engineering and management fields, which do not depend on public opinion. Theodore Roosevelt was among the first other-directed, twentieth century men. In choosing personal gain and political advantage over moral belief, he set the stage for the progressive-liberalism of the twentieth century, its moral vacuity and the economic decline that will result from focus on relationships and opinion rather than achievement.
David M. Tucker's Mugwumps: Public Moralists of the Gilded Age is an excellent overview of the Mugwumps. It is sympathetic to its subject, unlike others who have written about the Mugwumps. Phrases like "Old Right" abound in the post-war libertarian literature, but the image often is vague. Tucker's book shows that the 19th century classical liberals, known as independent Republicans, were former abolitionists, not bigots in any sense of the word (the few that turned out to be, such as Henry Adams ceased to be considered Mugwumps and became associated with Populism), and were very conscious of their libertarian ideology, their commitment to Adam Smith, the Manchester liberals and John Stuart Mill, with whom several corresponded. The Mugwumps were:
-A small movement, no larger than today's Libertarian Party as a percentage of the voting public, and probably smaller
-sharply differentiated from the two major parties in terms of their commitment to liberal or libertarian ideas, specifically tariff reduction (which the Democrats tended to support and the Republicans tended to oppose); hard money and the gold standard (which neither party really supported); and opposition to imperialism
-support for the newly formed (under the Pendleton Act) federal civil service, which they thought would end corruption in government and reduce the opportunity for spoils, which led the public to support corrupt government (in other words, they wanted to end special interest capture of government)
The book is very well written (although at times there could have been slightly better transitioning and linkage of ideas) and of serious interest to libertarians, conservatives, and those with an interest in the decline of morals in business and government.
Although the Mugwumps were the first post-industrial libertarian movement, they also were at the root of today's progressive-liberalism, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out. The effectiveness of their tactics, the use of social control and groupthink to effectuate a uniform party platform, served as a model to the next generation's emphasis on big government, imperialism and state intervention in the economy. Most of all, Mugwumps pioneered the use of groupthink as a political tactic. This has been copied not only by the progressive-liberals but also by today's Libertarian Party, which borrows the Mugwumps' appellation for the Republican Party, "the party of principle".
Tucker's perspective on the Mugwumps is sharply from John R. Dobson's Politics in the Gilded Age which I blog here. Tucker has more respect for the Mugwumps.
David Riesmann has argued that in the twentieth century Americans turned from a 19th century inner directedness that involves a goal and future orientation to an other directedness that involves a focus on peers, influence from popular media, fashion and interpersonal relationships at work. But the tension between these two impulses was already evident in the 1870s.
Several of the Mugwumps, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, sacrificed their Mugwump ideals for conformity to the Republicans' political demands. They refused to join the other Mugwumps in exiting the Republican Party in 1884. Both Roosevelt and Lodge had much more successful political careers than the other Mugwumps because they put politics over principle, and they did so by adopt the other-directed progressive-liberal ideas of the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt may be thought of as the first other-directed American.
A few of the Mugwumps, such as Henry Adams, who rejected Mugwumpery in favor of anti-Semitism, Populism and free silver (Tucker suggests that the Adamses' exit from Mugwumpery was related to their failure in real estate speculation in Spokane and Kansas City and their hope for a silver inflation). Henry Adams became a Populist who blamed Jewish bankers for his business failings.
The most effective Mugwumps were those who played off the two-party system, favoring one or the other party depending on who was following the most libertarian course. They became famous for this in 1884, when they contributed to the defeat of James G. Blaine in favor of Grover Cleveland, who was a largely libertarian president.
The Mugwumps ran only two independent candidates in their roughly 35-year history: Horace Greeley of the Liberal Republicans in 1872 and John M. Palmer of the National Democrats in 1895. Neither fared well. There is a lesson for the Libertarian Party here. The LP would function more effectively as an election spoiler than as an independent political party.
The Mugwumps (or Independent Republicans) were mostly upper class northeasterners, mainly from New England and New York. They tended to have been educated in religious, Protestant schools and to have had a strong moral sense. Many were former abolitionists. They were not religious themselves, but their grounding and education was. They were concerned with the decay of morals in American politics, and were inclined to foresake personal gain and office on behalf of their ideals, which did not match their economic interests. In other words, many of them benefited from paper money and inflation, but they opposed it on moral grounds, and the same is true of tariffs. Many left wing historians, who lack grounding in economics and ethics, look for class or personal motives in the Mugwumps' position. Ironically, support for inflation, free silver, greenbacks and Keynesian economics is very much the position that favors the upper class, banking interests, Wall Street, hedge fund billionaires, large coroporations and corporate executvies. It was Theodore Roosevelt who benefited from his cynical adoption of progressive-liberalism, the ideology of the American upper class from 1900 to 2007. EL Godkin, Carl Schurz, Horace White and the other Mugwumps paid dearly for their idealistic commitment to morality in politics. The fact that historians have often treated them shabbily suggests shabbines in academia more than anything else.
The Independent Republicans had one advantage over today's libertarians and conservatives: the intellectual support of mainstream universities. Relatively few Americans were capable of thinking through monetary issues even in the 1870s. Today, probably even a smaller percentage of the population is willing to expend the effort to do so. However, when the Mugwumps could say that their ideas had the backing of Harvard economists, the public was much more likely to defer. In this sense, they provided a role model to today's progressive-liberals, who dominate our society through their control of higher education. This intrigues me because it suggests a tighter link between the ideology of higher education, economic interests and what Howard S. Katz calls "the paper aristocracy" than I used to think.
The Mugwumps had limited data on which to base their arguments, and they fell into a number of errors. The most grievous Mugwumps fell were their support for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and their belief that the civil service would end special interest politics and government corruption. Their emphasis on the Fed came from three factors: (1) they believed that the Fed would be constrained by the gold standard, which Roosevelt abolished in the 1930s; (2) they believed that separating money from politics would reduce the temptation to inflate (they overrated the institutional separation of the Fed from Congress; (3) they did not anticipate Keynesian economics, which provided an ideological rationale for the inflationist view which (not to blame them, who could would have known?).
Their notions of morality led to their belief in free trade, the gold standard and honest government, notably via civil service reform. Their advocacy of sound money and free trade, which they explicitly linked to the elimination of special privilege, favoritism for the rich (the debtor class, according to their arguments, being the chief beneficiaries of paper money, then as now) was explicitly rooted in their moral sense. They saw individual achievement, self sufficiency and hard work as moral principles that protectionism and paper money would debase.
Then as now there were powerful forces arrayed against moralist and hard money positions. There was strong western agitation for greenbacks and then silver inflation by landowners (much as the subprime crisis today has been a strong motivation of reallocation of wealth to wealthy investment bankers and landowners), and politicians were inclined to support the demands for inflation. In fact, there were several greenback and free silver bills passed, that Mugwump agitation was able to stop, and some that the Mugwumps could not stop.
The Mugwumps saw the debate as one involving moral principle against personal gain. Those who favored personal gain over morals joined the regular party ranks. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, are cited as two examples of reformers who chose to emphasize their careers as opposed to their morals. When James G. B
Gain in democracatic politics is linked to popular appeal. Hence other directedness results from focus on public opinion. However, the advances in American society came not from the political but from the creative, scientific, engineering and management fields, which do not depend on public opinion. Theodore Roosevelt was among the first other-directed, twentieth century men. In choosing personal gain and political advantage over moral belief, he set the stage for the progressive-liberalism of the twentieth century, its moral vacuity and the economic decline that will result from focus on relationships and opinion rather than achievement.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Scott Brown Was a Hill of Boston Baked Beans
I just received this e-mail from Chris Eddes on the Republican Liberty Caucus group on Yahoo! Wes Benedict, head of the Libertarian Party, is right that the focus on Scott Brown last fall was a dumb mistake. It will not be the last boner (in the bonehead meaning) that the Tea Party pulls. One, incidentally, that I saw through at the time. Benedict's letter is followed by my response.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Like you, I am upset that the health care bill passed last night. Another huge expansion of government spending and government control is not good for our freedom or our health.
When I heard about the passage, I was reminded of the many hateful emails I received earlier this year demanding that the Libertarian Party make Libertarian Independent candidate Joe Kennedy drop out of the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race and endorse Republican Scott Brown. Doing so, "at this time, for this election, was more important than ever in order to save America from socialism," or so they said. Even though Scott Brown supported Mitt Romney's mandatory universal health insurance for Massachusetts residents, somehow electing a Republican, any Republican, instead of a Democrat was supposed to save America.
Even 30% of poll respondents on our website supported such a move.
I am proud that Libertarian Joe Kennedy stood firm and stayed in that race, despite the nasty messages and threats he received.
However, a lot of people gave in to that argument and voted for Scott Brown. What happened? The health care plan passed anyway. And on top of it, there's now another big-government senator voting for things like "jobs packages."
But if just 20% of Massachusetts residents had voted for Libertarian Joe Kennedy, I bet that would have sent such a loud message that it would have stopped this health care plan in its tracks. I think this is a clear reminder why we should all stand firm and vote for Libertarians, whether or not they're in close races.
I watched just a few minutes of the debate last night on C-SPAN. I could not stand hearing Republicans proclaim in the same sentence that we need to oppose government takeover of health care, and also to protect Medicare! What hypocrites. Medicare is government health care too. It was the 2003 Republican Congress and President George Bush that passed the $400 billion Medicare prescription coverage expansion (that later turned out to cost over $1 trillion).
I was on a radio show this morning and a caller asked me, "Is there even any hope for America?" I want to thank him for asking me that, because I am reminded that America is still one of the freest and most prosperous nations on earth, even though that freedom and prosperity are at great risk. Things are getting tougher, but
America is still a great place and our freedom is still worth fighting for even if we lose some battles along the way.
Somewhat related to this topic, we've had a poll on our website for a couple of weeks, which asks, "Which expensive government project do you support the most?"
Former Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne used to say, "Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again?"
I hope you'll go to the poll
http://www.lp.org/poll/which-expensive-government-project-do-you-support-the-most and pick the Libertarian option: "None of the above. Cut spending on all of them." At the time of sending this message, that option has just 45% of the votes.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
My response:
Wes Benedict is right that people overrated Brown's election and he is right that a 20% vote for the LP would have sent a loud message. At the same time, the Democrat would have been elected and she was just as big an advocate of big government as Brown. So the message was sent in either case and we would have gotten big government in either case. In other words, the Democrats didn't care about the message. They care for power, not popular opinion, which they view as misguided and inarticulate. Only they can articulate what the people think in their view.
Also, America is still one of the freest countries, but not the freest according to several groups that rate overall freedom and economic freedom. Most rate Hong Kong and Singapore higher overall and with respect to overall but not economic freedom also rate New Zealand, Australia and sometimes the Bahamas higher. The passage of the health care act brings the US down several notches, and it is getting close to the point where some might consider emigration to a freer country if they have the resources and value freedom highly. The US is not the beacon of freedom it once was. But it is still relatively free compared to the tyrannies and socialist states that characterize the entire world. It is ironic indeed that Hong Kong, a nation ruled by the second most murderous nation in history, is freer than the United States.
Our freedom is still worth fighting for but the union is not, in my opinion. Before the Civil War the question continued to be debated as to whether the states had ceded to the federal government the right to force them to remain in the union. Although the North won the war, the issue need not be viewed as settled. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear and it says that rights not given to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. The federal government has betrayed that principle, and has violated its moral and contractual obligation to the states and the people. The majority of Americans have been willing to sacrifice their freedom in favor of security and the belief that by taxing others they can benefit economically. Hence, the nation's claim to morality based on the rule of non-violence no longer stands. I do not think that the federal government, the United States government, deserves my commitment or my respect, nor is it something that is worth fighting for. Nor is it something that if someone attempts to rescind it or gain freedom from it that I would defend.
Rather, I am on Jefferson Davis's and Robert E. Lee's side now. The federal government in its present form is illegitimate and does not deserve respect or honor.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Like you, I am upset that the health care bill passed last night. Another huge expansion of government spending and government control is not good for our freedom or our health.
When I heard about the passage, I was reminded of the many hateful emails I received earlier this year demanding that the Libertarian Party make Libertarian Independent candidate Joe Kennedy drop out of the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race and endorse Republican Scott Brown. Doing so, "at this time, for this election, was more important than ever in order to save America from socialism," or so they said. Even though Scott Brown supported Mitt Romney's mandatory universal health insurance for Massachusetts residents, somehow electing a Republican, any Republican, instead of a Democrat was supposed to save America.
Even 30% of poll respondents on our website supported such a move.
I am proud that Libertarian Joe Kennedy stood firm and stayed in that race, despite the nasty messages and threats he received.
However, a lot of people gave in to that argument and voted for Scott Brown. What happened? The health care plan passed anyway. And on top of it, there's now another big-government senator voting for things like "jobs packages."
But if just 20% of Massachusetts residents had voted for Libertarian Joe Kennedy, I bet that would have sent such a loud message that it would have stopped this health care plan in its tracks. I think this is a clear reminder why we should all stand firm and vote for Libertarians, whether or not they're in close races.
I watched just a few minutes of the debate last night on C-SPAN. I could not stand hearing Republicans proclaim in the same sentence that we need to oppose government takeover of health care, and also to protect Medicare! What hypocrites. Medicare is government health care too. It was the 2003 Republican Congress and President George Bush that passed the $400 billion Medicare prescription coverage expansion (that later turned out to cost over $1 trillion).
I was on a radio show this morning and a caller asked me, "Is there even any hope for America?" I want to thank him for asking me that, because I am reminded that America is still one of the freest and most prosperous nations on earth, even though that freedom and prosperity are at great risk. Things are getting tougher, but
America is still a great place and our freedom is still worth fighting for even if we lose some battles along the way.
Somewhat related to this topic, we've had a poll on our website for a couple of weeks, which asks, "Which expensive government project do you support the most?"
Former Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne used to say, "Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again?"
I hope you'll go to the poll
http://www.lp.org/poll/which-expensive-government-project-do-you-support-the-most and pick the Libertarian option: "None of the above. Cut spending on all of them." At the time of sending this message, that option has just 45% of the votes.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
My response:
Wes Benedict is right that people overrated Brown's election and he is right that a 20% vote for the LP would have sent a loud message. At the same time, the Democrat would have been elected and she was just as big an advocate of big government as Brown. So the message was sent in either case and we would have gotten big government in either case. In other words, the Democrats didn't care about the message. They care for power, not popular opinion, which they view as misguided and inarticulate. Only they can articulate what the people think in their view.
Also, America is still one of the freest countries, but not the freest according to several groups that rate overall freedom and economic freedom. Most rate Hong Kong and Singapore higher overall and with respect to overall but not economic freedom also rate New Zealand, Australia and sometimes the Bahamas higher. The passage of the health care act brings the US down several notches, and it is getting close to the point where some might consider emigration to a freer country if they have the resources and value freedom highly. The US is not the beacon of freedom it once was. But it is still relatively free compared to the tyrannies and socialist states that characterize the entire world. It is ironic indeed that Hong Kong, a nation ruled by the second most murderous nation in history, is freer than the United States.
Our freedom is still worth fighting for but the union is not, in my opinion. Before the Civil War the question continued to be debated as to whether the states had ceded to the federal government the right to force them to remain in the union. Although the North won the war, the issue need not be viewed as settled. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear and it says that rights not given to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. The federal government has betrayed that principle, and has violated its moral and contractual obligation to the states and the people. The majority of Americans have been willing to sacrifice their freedom in favor of security and the belief that by taxing others they can benefit economically. Hence, the nation's claim to morality based on the rule of non-violence no longer stands. I do not think that the federal government, the United States government, deserves my commitment or my respect, nor is it something that is worth fighting for. Nor is it something that if someone attempts to rescind it or gain freedom from it that I would defend.
Rather, I am on Jefferson Davis's and Robert E. Lee's side now. The federal government in its present form is illegitimate and does not deserve respect or honor.
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.
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, September 22, 2008
Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party
Given the Republican Party's failure of ideas under George W. Bush and the recent strides toward socialization of America's financial institutions, I now consider the Libertarian Party platform more seriously. I have supported John McCain until now, but I am less certain following the recent Bush socialization plan. They are causing me to re-think my heretofore solid support for John McCain.
According to the Libertarian Party's website, Bob Barr is at 8 to 11 percent in polls in late August in several states. These include Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada. This is enough to make Barr a factor in the race. Voting for him is not throwing one's vote away as it would be if he were running at two or three percent across the board.
On September 17, the Libertarians passed a resolution supporting withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that. In fact, it seems frivolous because they do not discuss how it will impact our defense against further 9/11-style attacks. It is nice to say that you are for isolationism, but Thomas Jefferson sent the navy to secure the Mediterranean from the Barbary pirates, who were enslaving our sailors. The Barbary pirates were similar to the crew we're fighting in Afghanistan. This is a strategic question that the Libertarians treat as a moral question.
On September 11, Bob Barr stated that a "surge" for fiscal responsibility is needed. He says:
“On my first day as president I will freeze federal spending...On day two, I will establish the Commission On Wasteful Government to develop a list of programs with no constitutional basis, which belong at the state or local level, or which don’t work. And I will go to Congress with a long list of programs to eliminate.”
This is a good position. I think across-the-board 35% cuts are a better idea, with a list of programs coming second, but a list is fine.
Also:
"Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are saying no more bailouts. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are talking about controlling entitlements spending. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are pushing the surge in fiscal responsibility that the country needs.”
Barr made a 9/11 statement about terrorism on 9/10:
"The U.S. government can best mark the anniversary by continuing to target groups which threaten Americans, but also by respecting the liberties upon which our nation is based.
“The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization...However, early on, the administration took its eye off of the ball when it shifted troops from searching for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to use in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Now, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating badly.”
On the one hand the LP says that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, on the other Bob Barr says that we should focus on Afghanistan. This is amateurish at best.
As for Iraq, Barr writes,
"I will quickly withdraw U.S. troops, leaving Iraqis in control of their own dstinies.”
With respect to experience, Barr has more experience than Obama, with eight years in Congress. However, he has less than McCain and lacks executive experience, as do Biden, Obama and McCain. Only Sarah Palin has executive experience.
Barr, like Obama and McCain, strikes me as an imperfect candidate. Overall, I would rate them as follows. My rating depends heavily on how heavily I weight the Republicans' socialist strategy is:
I consider two different weighting schemes that reflect my personal preferences. In the first, I weight the economy 50%, defense and counter-terrorism 20% each and social issues 10%. In the second, I weight the economy 30%, defense and counter terrorism 30% each, and social issues 10%. If I weight the economy at 50% of my concern, then Bob Barr is preferable to me over John McCain. However, if I weight the economy at 30% of my concern, then John McCain is preferable. Barack Obama is not in the running.
However, there are several strategic and dynamic concerns. For instance, a McCain victory now would continue to give credence to the socialist/big business/ Progressive wing of the Republican Party, which has become dominant and has been successful at influencing conservatives. Four more years of drooling boobs on Fox touting claims of non-existent "emergencies" to facilitate socialism will be difficult for me to take.
Second, a strong showing for Bob Barr will give the Republicans pause about the socialist path that they have chosen. This will enable free market liberals and intelligent conservatives to regroup.
Third, laissez-faire conservatives can blame further steps toward socialism on Obama. This will create Republican antipathy against rather than support for socialism. This would be a good thing and would harm the Republican Progressives, who have become ever more dominant. (They were always dominant, but the Bush administration is a Progressive fantasy come to life).
The question of whether to support McCain or Barr hinges first on the importance of reduction in economic freedom due to the Republicans' socialist strategy versus the threat of terrorism and military attack. Second, it depends on electoral strategic factors, which militate in favor of Barr. A strong Libertarian showing will push the Republicans toward more laissez-faire policies. At the same time, a Republican loss will stall Republican Progressives. On the other hand, there are serious defense, counter-terrorism and social drawbacks to an Obama administration relative to McCain. However, it is possible that, given this week's events, an Obama administration will reflect an improvement over the Republicans with respect to laissez-faire and efficient government.
It has become a difficult call. I have previously contributed heavily to McCain (for someone on a professor's salary). I am not sure that I can continue to morally support him given the Republicans' choices at the national level. I have reached out to some friends for advice on this, and am interested in your thoughts.
According to the Libertarian Party's website, Bob Barr is at 8 to 11 percent in polls in late August in several states. These include Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada. This is enough to make Barr a factor in the race. Voting for him is not throwing one's vote away as it would be if he were running at two or three percent across the board.
On September 17, the Libertarians passed a resolution supporting withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that. In fact, it seems frivolous because they do not discuss how it will impact our defense against further 9/11-style attacks. It is nice to say that you are for isolationism, but Thomas Jefferson sent the navy to secure the Mediterranean from the Barbary pirates, who were enslaving our sailors. The Barbary pirates were similar to the crew we're fighting in Afghanistan. This is a strategic question that the Libertarians treat as a moral question.
On September 11, Bob Barr stated that a "surge" for fiscal responsibility is needed. He says:
“On my first day as president I will freeze federal spending...On day two, I will establish the Commission On Wasteful Government to develop a list of programs with no constitutional basis, which belong at the state or local level, or which don’t work. And I will go to Congress with a long list of programs to eliminate.”
This is a good position. I think across-the-board 35% cuts are a better idea, with a list of programs coming second, but a list is fine.
Also:
"Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are saying no more bailouts. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are talking about controlling entitlements spending. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are pushing the surge in fiscal responsibility that the country needs.”
Barr made a 9/11 statement about terrorism on 9/10:
"The U.S. government can best mark the anniversary by continuing to target groups which threaten Americans, but also by respecting the liberties upon which our nation is based.
“The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization...However, early on, the administration took its eye off of the ball when it shifted troops from searching for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to use in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Now, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating badly.”
On the one hand the LP says that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, on the other Bob Barr says that we should focus on Afghanistan. This is amateurish at best.
As for Iraq, Barr writes,
"I will quickly withdraw U.S. troops, leaving Iraqis in control of their own dstinies.”
With respect to experience, Barr has more experience than Obama, with eight years in Congress. However, he has less than McCain and lacks executive experience, as do Biden, Obama and McCain. Only Sarah Palin has executive experience.
Barr, like Obama and McCain, strikes me as an imperfect candidate. Overall, I would rate them as follows. My rating depends heavily on how heavily I weight the Republicans' socialist strategy is:
I consider two different weighting schemes that reflect my personal preferences. In the first, I weight the economy 50%, defense and counter-terrorism 20% each and social issues 10%. In the second, I weight the economy 30%, defense and counter terrorism 30% each, and social issues 10%. If I weight the economy at 50% of my concern, then Bob Barr is preferable to me over John McCain. However, if I weight the economy at 30% of my concern, then John McCain is preferable. Barack Obama is not in the running.
However, there are several strategic and dynamic concerns. For instance, a McCain victory now would continue to give credence to the socialist/big business/ Progressive wing of the Republican Party, which has become dominant and has been successful at influencing conservatives. Four more years of drooling boobs on Fox touting claims of non-existent "emergencies" to facilitate socialism will be difficult for me to take.
Second, a strong showing for Bob Barr will give the Republicans pause about the socialist path that they have chosen. This will enable free market liberals and intelligent conservatives to regroup.
Third, laissez-faire conservatives can blame further steps toward socialism on Obama. This will create Republican antipathy against rather than support for socialism. This would be a good thing and would harm the Republican Progressives, who have become ever more dominant. (They were always dominant, but the Bush administration is a Progressive fantasy come to life).
The question of whether to support McCain or Barr hinges first on the importance of reduction in economic freedom due to the Republicans' socialist strategy versus the threat of terrorism and military attack. Second, it depends on electoral strategic factors, which militate in favor of Barr. A strong Libertarian showing will push the Republicans toward more laissez-faire policies. At the same time, a Republican loss will stall Republican Progressives. On the other hand, there are serious defense, counter-terrorism and social drawbacks to an Obama administration relative to McCain. However, it is possible that, given this week's events, an Obama administration will reflect an improvement over the Republicans with respect to laissez-faire and efficient government.
It has become a difficult call. I have previously contributed heavily to McCain (for someone on a professor's salary). I am not sure that I can continue to morally support him given the Republicans' choices at the national level. I have reached out to some friends for advice on this, and am interested in your thoughts.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Why I Support Republicans in 2018 and Trump in 2020, and Why I Oppose Sissified Democrats
Last year Tom Ross wrote a piece in the Examiner in which he quoted William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts and the 2016 Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate, as claiming that data showed that 75% of LP voters would have voted for Trump rather than Clinton. As a result, Trump would have won a net majority in the absence of minor parties.
I am one of the culprits who did not vote for Trump. Until recently, I tended not to vote in presidential elections. When I did, I supported the Libertarian candidate. However, I served on my county Republican committee, worked for the Republican Party locally, and voted during the three nonpresidential years. I have opposed the evident corruption in the GOP both locally and nationally, but I have also contributed to GOP candidates.
As a libertarian, there were three features of Trump's candidacy that turned me off: his proposed wall, his animus toward immigration, and his suspicions about free trade. These are anti-libertarian positions, and I still oppose them.
However, there are two areas in which Trump has demonstrated valuable instincts: his attitudes toward political correctness and the media. Political correctness is a polite name for the totalitarian control and authoritarianism that have always been associated with socialism, communism, and the left in general. One does not advocate a strong government because one is shy of control; one who desires control is as likely to desire it with respect to civil as well as economic matters.
The left's thoroughgoing and consistent authoritarianism is seen in its rationalization architecture. Scholars like Adorno call all who oppose left-wing authoritarianism "authoritarian"; meanwhile, Herbert Marcuse advocates intolerance. A movement that claims to be intolerant in the name of opposing authoritarianism is a spinning top capable of anything. Indeed, the left, when it gains power, has accomplished every horror imaginable, beginning with mass murder in the nine digits.
Accelerating left-wing totalitarian patterns have been evident to me since I entered higher education in the early 1990s, and they continued to escalate up to the point when the Obama administration began to prosecute professors for expression of views that had no connection to teaching or the campus. Laura Kipnis was accused of creating a hostile environment at Northwestern University simply because she wrote two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
These rules have now changed. The Trump administration is the first in my lifetime to reverse the march toward totalitarianism in American universities. The exclusion of Republicans from leading universities, which I have studied, is symptomatic of Democratic Party-subsidized groupthink. In turn, the subsidization reflects a historical impetus from corporate-linked foundations, which were eager to homogenize education and eject Christianity from American colleges in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The media has a similar history. It was consolidated by investment banking interests, and the centralization and left orientation received subsequent support from the Democratic Party, which censored libertarian positions during the New Deal. The centralization and homogenization of higher education and journalism converge on the needs of large financial institutions and one of their twin handmaidens, the Democratic Party.
Trump is the first elected official to threaten the status quo. Perhaps this was a ploy to gain votes--but perhaps Trump understands that the media, the universities, the so-called deep state, and especially the Democratic Party have interests that are as really aligned with the interests of ordinary Americans as the interests of Septimius Severus were really aligned with the ordinary Romans who received free bread.
By coincidence I have recently been listening to a lecture series about Roman history, and the thought occurred to me that a parallel might be made between the decline of Rome and the sissification of American culture, especially in the Democratic Party. I googled a related combination of words and came across a series of news items that tell a story similar to the dumbed-down attacks I have suffered at the hands of the fake-news media.
In 2011 the Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, based on a lifetime of study of Roman history, concluded that the decline of Rome was caused by a parallel process. De Mattei, who was head of the Italian Research Council, was treated to threats and calls for his sacking by Mussolini's fascio descendants, the Italian left wing.
America's dumbed-down journalists are tools of globalist financiers who delight in American indebtedness, decline, authoritarianism, and socialism. The delight about the indebtedness part ends when Republicans follow the same destructive policies as the Democrats, but it holds when the Democrats are in office
American journalists worry endlessly about their supposed freedom of the press, which is constrained to the point of zero by centralized credit, centralized financial controls, regulated cable television monopolies, regulated airwaves, and dumbed-down journalists, who are economic and historical illiterates trained by ideological, totalitarian institutions.
The Internet, which was originally thought to be a decentralizing force, is increasingly concentrated on social media that has proven even more authoritarian and subject to centralizing control than television.
Trump's use of Twitter turns this dynamic on its head. Bless him.
I am one of the culprits who did not vote for Trump. Until recently, I tended not to vote in presidential elections. When I did, I supported the Libertarian candidate. However, I served on my county Republican committee, worked for the Republican Party locally, and voted during the three nonpresidential years. I have opposed the evident corruption in the GOP both locally and nationally, but I have also contributed to GOP candidates.
As a libertarian, there were three features of Trump's candidacy that turned me off: his proposed wall, his animus toward immigration, and his suspicions about free trade. These are anti-libertarian positions, and I still oppose them.
However, there are two areas in which Trump has demonstrated valuable instincts: his attitudes toward political correctness and the media. Political correctness is a polite name for the totalitarian control and authoritarianism that have always been associated with socialism, communism, and the left in general. One does not advocate a strong government because one is shy of control; one who desires control is as likely to desire it with respect to civil as well as economic matters.
The left's thoroughgoing and consistent authoritarianism is seen in its rationalization architecture. Scholars like Adorno call all who oppose left-wing authoritarianism "authoritarian"; meanwhile, Herbert Marcuse advocates intolerance. A movement that claims to be intolerant in the name of opposing authoritarianism is a spinning top capable of anything. Indeed, the left, when it gains power, has accomplished every horror imaginable, beginning with mass murder in the nine digits.
Accelerating left-wing totalitarian patterns have been evident to me since I entered higher education in the early 1990s, and they continued to escalate up to the point when the Obama administration began to prosecute professors for expression of views that had no connection to teaching or the campus. Laura Kipnis was accused of creating a hostile environment at Northwestern University simply because she wrote two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
These rules have now changed. The Trump administration is the first in my lifetime to reverse the march toward totalitarianism in American universities. The exclusion of Republicans from leading universities, which I have studied, is symptomatic of Democratic Party-subsidized groupthink. In turn, the subsidization reflects a historical impetus from corporate-linked foundations, which were eager to homogenize education and eject Christianity from American colleges in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The media has a similar history. It was consolidated by investment banking interests, and the centralization and left orientation received subsequent support from the Democratic Party, which censored libertarian positions during the New Deal. The centralization and homogenization of higher education and journalism converge on the needs of large financial institutions and one of their twin handmaidens, the Democratic Party.
Trump is the first elected official to threaten the status quo. Perhaps this was a ploy to gain votes--but perhaps Trump understands that the media, the universities, the so-called deep state, and especially the Democratic Party have interests that are as really aligned with the interests of ordinary Americans as the interests of Septimius Severus were really aligned with the ordinary Romans who received free bread.
By coincidence I have recently been listening to a lecture series about Roman history, and the thought occurred to me that a parallel might be made between the decline of Rome and the sissification of American culture, especially in the Democratic Party. I googled a related combination of words and came across a series of news items that tell a story similar to the dumbed-down attacks I have suffered at the hands of the fake-news media.
In 2011 the Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, based on a lifetime of study of Roman history, concluded that the decline of Rome was caused by a parallel process. De Mattei, who was head of the Italian Research Council, was treated to threats and calls for his sacking by Mussolini's fascio descendants, the Italian left wing.
America's dumbed-down journalists are tools of globalist financiers who delight in American indebtedness, decline, authoritarianism, and socialism. The delight about the indebtedness part ends when Republicans follow the same destructive policies as the Democrats, but it holds when the Democrats are in office
American journalists worry endlessly about their supposed freedom of the press, which is constrained to the point of zero by centralized credit, centralized financial controls, regulated cable television monopolies, regulated airwaves, and dumbed-down journalists, who are economic and historical illiterates trained by ideological, totalitarian institutions.
The Internet, which was originally thought to be a decentralizing force, is increasingly concentrated on social media that has proven even more authoritarian and subject to centralizing control than television.
Trump's use of Twitter turns this dynamic on its head. Bless him.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Why Not Gary Johnson?
From Ulster County political guru Robin V. Yess: This is from inside the Gary Johnson campaign. The Libertarian
Party National Convention is May 2 thru 6 in Las Vegas. Still wondering if Ron
Paul will crash it?
My thoughts (I copied State Senator Bonacic and Ulster County Republican Chair Roger Rascoe):
I don’t know. I would like to know if Ron Paul is
considering a third party bid. If not, it will be worth putting energy and
money into Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Party campaign. Johnson is an
intelligent, competent leader, with a much stronger resume than either Romney
or Obama. As governor of New Mexico Johnson cut spending with a
Democratic legislature. Compare that to our Republicans in New York who
specialize in public housing and corrupt deals with destructive real estate
developers. Nationally, we have a Democratic candidate who
sponsored Romneycare and a Republican candidate who sponsored Obamacare.
That Gary Johnson was given short shrift in the GOP primary next to extremist
kooks like Gingrich and Santorum and a corporate welfare crook like Oromney (or
is it Robama?) is proof enough that the two party system is broken. I’m
hoping for a split government, with a GOP Congress and a Democratic
president. However, if Paul runs it is conceivable that his percentage
could compete with Oromney and Robama. Perhaps we can get rid of the
broken two-party system.
From the Johnson Campaign:
Friends of Liberty,
All over the country,
liberty-minded activists are preparing to converge next week to nominate
the Libertarian Party candidates for President and Vice-President of the
United States.
With those nominations, the 2012
history-making begins. There are only three candidates for President
who will be on the November ballot in all 50 states. The Republican
candidate – most likely, Mitt Romney; the Democrat candidate, Barack Obama; and
the Libertarian Party nominee. Essentially a three-way race for the White
House. And as you well know, I hope to be that ‘third’ cho ice as the
Libertarian nominee.
In poll after poll, large
majorities of voters are making it clear that they are, more than ever before,
open to the idea of a fiscally conservative, socially tolerant candidate – a
choice that will not be offered by Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. Those voters are also making it clear that the
business-as-usual represented by the tired two-party duopoly is not what they
want in 2012.
You and I have worked long and
hard to get where we are today. Our goal has been – and remains – putting
liberty, truly smaller government, and individual freedom on the American
political agenda. Well, friends, we are on the verge of doing just
that. Thanks to your support and hard work, we are within a few short
days of achieving what the elite media and the political establishment never
believed could happen: An election in which Gary Johnson will be on the ballot
– in every state - as a very real alternative to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
Then, it gets extremely
interesting. But only with your help. Yes, we have done the work,
we have traveled far to get here, and we are on the verge of making
history. We are giving America the choice they want and deserve. But
that choice will only be real if we are able to get our message out. The
Republican and Democrat establishments are amassing hundreds of millions of
dollars to flood the airwaves, the phone lines and the Internet with their
ever-shifting appeals.
Without your help, our message of
liberty and freedom will be lost in the two-party noise. We
have earned our place in the national debate, but we won’t be heard without the
financial resources to take our campaign to every corner of the nation – to build
on the base that has been built by Ron Paul, by our campaign, and by you.
With the nominating convention
coming up next week, there are only a few days left to have your contributions
‘matched’ – or essentially doubled from the Presidential Campaign Matching
Fund. Every one of those dollars is critical. Please go to GaryJohnson2012.com
today and help seize the amazing opportunity we have, together, created for
liberty, freedom and real prosperity. Ending needless wars, balancing
the budget, getting the government out of boardrooms and bedrooms alike.
We must tell America there is a candidate who will do those things, if given a
chance. Your contribution will let us do just that.
Go to GaryJohnson2012.com
today and send that message. We ARE about to make history – and it
begins in Las Vegas next week.
Thank you,
Gov. Gary Johnson
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
