Chavez: Doing His Best to Keep the Neocons in the Driver's Seat

This Hugo Chavez is a piece of work. While I'm quite critical of US foreign policy, and I tend to think that Israel overreacted to Hizbollah's taking of two soldiers, this news report has me scratching my head.

Chavez, attempting to apparently ingratiate himself with the Muslim world, said:

"Nothing equals the Nazi crimes Israel has committed in Lebanon and against the Palestinians," said Chavez, who arrived in Syria on Tuesday evening from Malaysia.

Nothing? In all of human history or currently, Chavez finds Israel's actions the worst. One can be critical, surely, of any number of actions that Israel's taken, but to suggest that Israel is "Nazi" is beyond ridiculous, IMO. For the most part, it seems obvious that they are trying to defend their homeland, albeit sometimes somewhat aggressively. Israel has never demonstrated that it has designs on imposing Judaism, for instance, on wide swaths of the globe. Israel doesn't, to my knowledge, force prisoners to convert to the Jewish faith, like those Fox reporters who were recently taken hostage were forced to convert to Islam.

What Chavez does do is create ammunition for the neoconservatives. "See, we told you so," they'll say. Add Chavez to the "Axis of Evil." I can see the wheels spinning now in the heads of the Weekly Standard editors, trying to justify a pre-emptive strike on Caracas, Venezuela's capital.

Chavez is, paradoxically, a neocon's dream.

-Robert Capozzi

The Republicans' secret weapon

is the Democrats. Courtesy of Butler Shaffer at the lewrockwell.com blog comes the latest example: Joe Biden's comment that he can win the South since he comes from a "slave" state. Of course Biden thinks this, all good liberal Democrats know white southern Christians are a bunch of inbred racists. Biden's statement is almost as idiotic as the Democrats' plan to capture the "values" voters without changing their position on abortion by labeling a raise in the minimum wage a "values" issue.

This condescending attitude toward anyone below the Mason-Dixon line is a major reason why Dixie will remain solidly behind the party of Lincoln.

Sovereignty and Inherent Threats

Now that August is almost over, and things have -- for now -- calmed in Lebanon and Israel, the chattering class's focus has moved on to weightier things. This column by Charley Reese sums things up nicely. What right do other nations have to tell Iran or North Korea whether they can develop nuclear power or weapons?

Reese says none. I'm inclined to agree, at least on the first level of analysis. However, I wonder, like the cat with the ball of yarn. Reese points out that so many other nations have nukes, why not Iran and North Korea?

I of course would prefer that NO nation have nukes. Nukes -- unlike other weapons -- not only devastate their target, but when used affect the planet in most injurious ways. Regardless of sovereignty matters, stopping nuclear proliferation seems a worthy goal. It seems we could construct an argument that nukes threaten everyone, including the US, even by far away Iran and North Korea. Yes, the practical consideration comes into play. Perhaps in the short term, a nuke in the hands of the Iranians and North Koreans could only be delivered to those nation's neighbors.

But that's only TODAY. Once in the nuclear club, it's so far been impossible to make them exit the club. Which makes any nation with a nuke -- in my view -- inherently threatening to all.

Does that mean the US should commence bombing Tehran tomorrow, to send them a stern pre-emptive message? Here I suggest No. But does that mean, at least in the context of these times, that something should be done to dissuade the Iranians from moving forward? Yes, to me that seems abundantly prudent.

Respecting sovereignty should, it seems to me, be a strongly held bias in international affairs. If Iran enforces any number of illiberal internal policies, it should not be a matter for US or international foreign policy. Reese points out the downside to such meddling in 1953, one that the Iranians frequently point to as their grievance with the West.

But it seems obvious that nukes are an entirely different kettle of fish.

Or something.

-Robert Capozzi

Complicit?

My old colleague Sheldon Richman makes the case for polarization in our politics. I hear him, I think, but his essay claims:

“We can’t afford such weak dissent today. The Bush administration is perpetrating horrors in the Middle East, and not to say so is to make oneself complicit.”

Is that necessarily so? If so, this starts to sound like George Bush himself back in his cowboy-style days, when he said: “You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”

I happen to agree that the Iraq War was a mistake, a horrible mistake. In this particular case, I thought it was a mistake at the outset, too. But can we really expect the administration to reverse course when the opposition is hellbent on embarrassing and repudiating the “Bush administration”?

Has it ever actually made sense to fight fire with fire? I say No. Two flames don’t extinguish one another – if anything, they enhance the inferno.

Instead, water puts out fire. I myself consider in a kind of transpartisan “bucket brigade.” But I don’t care to judge others as “complicit” if they don’t – for whatever reason – choose to pick up a bucket as well.

Yes, the “Bush administration” led the charge to war, no question. But, at the time, he had broad support in Congress and with the general public. To forget that is to forget a most salient fact, in my opinion.

-Robert Capozzi

Rockin in the Free World

Saturday I, along with none other than the Free Liberal's very own Robert Capozzi, was able to catch Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young in Northern Virgina. The show was an awesome combination of one of the finest rock concerts I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot) and an anti-war rally. In addition to performing most of Neil Young's "Living With War," CSNY performed almost all of the anti-war, anti-state classics the four have produced either individually, with each other, or as part of another group.

Included among the set list was Ohio (written and recorded in a few hours after the group learned of the Kent State massacre, before performing it Neil Young said "Thank God there is no more draft because I would hate to have to write a song like this again"), Almost Cut My Hair, Long Time Gone, Military Madness, and For What It's Worth. For me, the highlight was a beautiful rendition of Find the Cost of Freedom, accompanied by a video tribute to the young Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq.

Another highlight was the performance of Graham Nash's Chicago, written to protest the treatment of the protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention. It deserves to be listed as one of the great libertarian rock songs:

So your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing

In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help that we can bring

We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... to get better

Politicians sit yourselves down
There's nothing for you here
Won't you please come to Chicago
For a ride

Don't ask Jack to help you
'Cause he'll turn the other ear
Won't you please come to Chicago
Or else join the other side

We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... if you believe in justice
It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom
It's dying ... let a man live his own life
It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door

Somehow people must be free
I hope the day comes soon
Won't you please come to Chicago
Show your face

From the bottom of the ocean
To the mountains on the moon
Won't you please come to Chicago
No one else can take your place

Yes, we can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... if you believe in justice
It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom
It's dying ... let a man live his own life
It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door

Quality of Government

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution discuss whether libertarians fail to note that government isn't permanently at a given level of quality. Cowen argues that modern liberals are correct to put an emphasis on making government better as opposed to libertarians who always advocate using the market as a solution to the problems that government faces.

As someone who has expressed doubt that getting rid of government, especially overly quickly, is the answer to all of our problems, it seems to me that this is an important matter for free liberals to consider. The free liberal way of thinking might borrow from both perspectives. We can agree that government can be made better depending on how it is structured and on who is running it, but also keep in mind that many functions which governments have assumed might be better done by the market. I believe it is possible (and principled) to believe that we should improve government services even while we look for ways to push them towards being more market-based.

For a practical example, let us consider the public school system. The libertarian argument is to privatize the schools. Since libertarians believe this is the answer, some would argue that deteriorating schools are the natural outcome of the government meddling where it has no business. Modern liberals want to increase funding to the schools, raise teacher's salaries, elect more caring people to the school board, and get parents more involved. Since liberals do not believe there is anything structurally wrong with public schools, they believe it must be a lack of priority which causes the schools to be so poor. And truly, in richer neighborhoods with involved parents, the public schools are better than those in the ghettoes.

So, the conflict devolves into a fight over whether a person is for or against the schools. If we step back and recognize the end goal is better education, rather than being tied up in the means, we see at least a basis for dialogue. The discussion then becomes about process than whether a person is decent and moral. Libertarians can be more sensitive to the heartfelt concerns of parents for their children and liberals can be more open-minded about the economics of government bureaucracy.

Libertarians can recognize that liberty is not furthered by having a generation of children having their lives ruined by terrible schools. The calls for socialism are often heard where people are most desperate and have the least knowledge of entrepreneurship and free-market economics. If you can’t read, it is hard to read the public choice literature.

On the other hand, the dogma that the schools can and should only be run by the government is itself a product of so many people being educated by the public school system. Liberals who generally believe in being open-minded should certainly appreciate the danger of an entire populace being subjected to a one-size-fits-all, factory-like education bureaucracy.

An example of such a solution is one proposed by Carlisle Moody of William and Mary. He suggests funding school choice by giving parents a portion of their property tax dollars back, but not by the full amount which is going to the schools. The public schools get more money per pupil in this fashion, but parents who want to seek out alternatives to the public school system are also better off. The process of injecting competition should also make the public schools better as they know parents have a way out if the schools don’t perform. This is a Pareto optimal solution, which both camps should be able to agree to.

As we loosen the knot of government control, slowly though we do it, we may further see that our interests are not so opposed. The market provides choices, and well run government is less oppressive than poorly run government. At some point of moving towards the market-based programs, both the libertarians and the liberals may find that the current structure suits their interests and that further movement is unnecessary.

-- KDR

Jim Turner on the FDA

Jim Turner on the FDA

Best idea I've heard all week

Comes from Richard Wilkins at More Liberty. In commenting on how the the federal government keeps two sets of books to hide the true size of the federal deficit Wilkins suggests subjecting Congress to "Section 404 of the infamous Sarbanes-Oxley Act which would require them to personally certify the accuracy of the government's financial information or face civil and/or criminal liability if the financial information released to the public was found to be inaccurate."

The "unfree" liberal

Some libertarians and classical liberals have tended to look favorably on Joe Lieberman because he used to favor school choice, expressed skepticism about affirmative action, and at one time seemed to favor personal retirement accounts (he backed away from these positions when he was named VP candidate in 2000.) Libertarians who support global trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA also point to Lieberman's support for these agreements as a point in his favor.

However, examining the majority of Lieberman's record shows he is not a libertarian or a free liberal. Lieberman is not only a war monger, his voting record, as opposed to his rhetoric , reveal him to be a supporter of the welfare state(he has a lifetime grade of F from the National Taxpayers Union) and he is a moral authoritarian who believes politicians should play a role in determining what video games and TV shows children watch. Lieberman is also a supporter of the surveillance state.

Ned Lamont is certainly not a free liberal, but, as Paul Gessing pointed out a victory for Lieberman will be seen as a victory for the pro-war (and pro-moral authoritarianism, and anti-civil liberties) wing of the Democratic party.

Are the I.F.s the “Return of Hitler”?

Thanks to Chris Jones for his letter. It sounds as if Jones is an open-minded sort, yet he repeats a line of reasoning that I keep hearing from the neocons and their drumbeat for war to stop what they like to call Islamo-fascism (I.F.).

“I think the pre-World War II model fits best. There were people who were strongly non-interventionist (due to bad memories of WWI). And they argued, wrongly, that Hitler's fascism was not such a great threat, and that he could be contained peacefully.

“The delay in reacting to Hitler caused by these isolationist idealists led to a strengthened and almost unstoppable Hitler and the deaths of countless millions.”

When I hear this, I ask neocons this rather simple but – I’d like to think – insightful question: Don’t you think that nuclear weapons have changed things since 1938? Back then, Hitler’s Germany could roll into other European nations without the threat of Berlin or Frankfurt being wiped off the map.

So let’s say Tehran and al Qaeda team up into a new sort of axis. They start to try to re-assemble ancient Islamic hegemony over all the Middle East, southern Asia, northern Africa and even Spain. They try to march into Israel or India. Wait! Big problem. Cross a line, and Tehran is incinerated. Cross another, and Baghdad’s in flames.

Hitler didn’t have to consider doomsday devices in his calculations. The I.F.s do. I have no doubt that there are I.F.s who have grandiose schemes based on twisted readings of the Koran, I just don’t find them credible threats like Hitler’s Germany was to some nations.

What am I missing?

-Robert Capozzi

What's Next? Thinning the Herd

If Sidney Blumenthal is even directionally correct about what the neocons are up to, Houston have we ever got a problem. The line about "cleansing war" is off the charts, IMO.

-Robert Capozzi

Snakes on a Plane

is not the latest excuse for the federal government to harass us at the airport but a Samuel (Star Wars, Pulp Fiction) Jackson movie that is a shoe-in to sweep next year's academy awards. Okay, it might not sweep the Oscars, but this film does demonstrate how the Internet can empower audiences to effect the production and marketing of movies.

Thanks to the blogs, this B-movie is already one of, if not the, most anticipated films of the year. It is also the first time scenes have been added to a film based on the suggestions of bloggers, who wrote they would only see the movie if Samuel Jackson says "I've had with these (expletive deleted) snakes on this (expletive deleted) plane." Summer action movies may never be the same.

"Libertarians" for the draft?

Lew Rockwell highlights the bizarre argument against the draft made by Thomas Sowell. Sowell argues that today's American youth are spoiled, selfish brats who have been brainwashed by anti-American propaganda that was force fed them in public schools so they don't deserve to be drafted! The clear implication of Sowell's argument is that if kids where raised properly then a draft would be just fine. As one of the many libertarians who was influenced by his writings I am sad to see Sowell argue that the we have a moral duty to give our lives for the warfare state.