Pro-peace, Pro-slavery?

Thanks to Wally Conger,in his post on Selective Service's test of their ability to administer a draft, for this great quote from Jerome Tuccille's 1970 book Radical Libertarianism:

“The military draft must be regarded as the most brutal and unjust government institution in existence today. For here it is not a question of men’s pocketbooks and property being plundered by government; life itself — existence, the most valuable gift man possesses, without which all other freedoms are impossible — is under direct attack. Libertarians should align themselves with draft resisters throughout the country. They should set up picket lines around the draft boards; lend encouragement and moral and physical support to all young men who decide not to be inducted.”

I second Conger's call for friends of liberty to began organizing now against a return of the draft. A good place to start is by supporting the heroic work of the Center on Conscience and War.

Sadly, some in the anti-war community, including some libertarians, have joined the calls to return a draft on the grounds like that our politicians are less likely to engage in war-making if their children are likely to be sent to the front lines. There are serveral flaws in this argument.

First, conscription does not stop the warfare state. The draft did not stop Wilson from involving the US in World War I, Roosevelt from maneuvering to get the US involved in World War II, Truman from intervening in Korea, and LBJ from intervening in Vietnam. In fact, by lowering the cost of raising an army, a draft could lead to more wars.

A draft does not guarantee that the children of politicians will ever see combat. More likely the sons and daughters of Congressmen, Senators,and Presidents will get to play soldier in some comfy base far from any actual combat.

Unless we are going to extend the draft age to 100 and make Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen eligible, a draft does not directly punish those who started the war. Instead, it punishes their children. I would think that most libertarians would agree that children should not be punished for their father's sins. (Thanks to Matt Barganier for first pointing this out.)

Most importantly, advocacy of a draft, for whatever reason, is immoral. It is tough to think of a more unlibertarian policy than the draft. Libertarians who advocate a draft in the name of peace are doing long-term damage to the cause of peace and freedom by abandoning the principled defense of liberty in favor of advancing the taken of someone else liberty in order to achieve our goals. The alleged friends of peace who support conscription are no better than the neocons.

I wonder why pro-draft anti-war advocates don't agitate for other "anti-war" restrictions on liberty. For example, how about an automatic increase in tax rates any time the US launches a military action against a country who has not attacked the US. This could cause the US public to look much more skeptically on politicians who aggregate for war, since they would now be agitating for an automatic tax increase. Could it the reason most "pro-draft/anti-war" advocates don't support war taxes because they are above draft age but still pay taxes?

Looking for clues...

I'm convinced that there's a way of getting through to you
Ooh I'm looking for clues.
-Robert Palmer

It seems life is all about "looking for clues," as the late singer/songwriter Robert Palmer suggests.

Here's one: Reports indicate that Iranian diplomats were detained by US forces in Iraq. Notice that this allegedly "validates" the US government's assertion that the Iranians are "meddling" in Iraq.

Let me get this straight: The US overthrows the Iraq government, admittedly "bad guys." In so doing, ancient Shia/Sunni rivalries are unleashed, like a Pandora's Box. Neighboring Iran, a Shia nation largely, takes an interest in Iraq and especially their Shia population. Pretty much all the nations in the Middle East are unnatural "kluge" states, lines drawn in the sand by exiting Western colonials, largely post WWII. Iran and Iraq were at war not all that long ago.

Most observers of this fact set would be surprised if Iran wasn't meddling in Iraq. The unnamed "US official" simply stated the obvious.

Why did they do this? We can't, of course, know, but we shouldn't be surprised if this sort of revelation is another brick in the wall for the US continuing its presence in the Iraq quagmire, and perhaps getting more aggressive with Iran. Never mind that labeling Iran a "meddler" is the pot calling the kettle black.

This is an additional clue, and another cliche: It takes one (a meddler) to know one.

-Robert Capozzi

The Secretive Execution of Saddam Hussein

We wait in anticipation of the demise of our Great Enemy. The new Iraqi government is set to execute Saddam Hussein, dictator and villain, for his crimes against the people of Iraq. To the US Government, it appears as a victory. Finally, the man we have hated and our government has pursued since the first Gulf War, will pay for defying the US and doing unspeakable things to innocent people. It vindicates our war -- we have removed a threat in the Middle East and brought democracy to an oppressed people.

But, have we done good?

Have we furthered justice? Have we brought peace?

This execution suggests not. We don’t know when he will be executed. Whether it is for security reasons (to protect those who will carry it out), or for strategic reasons (to confuse those who would take action in protest of the execution), or for bureaucratic reasons (because executing people is not handled in a precise and scheduled manner by the government), it does not speak well for the Iraqi government’s transparency and credibility as an institution committed to honesty and justice.

Justice is certainly a fuzzy term. But, if one uses a certain definition, one cannot criticize and compare if the definition changes between cases. So, we must fix one as “our” definition of justice. Saddam had secret trials and secret executions. His raison d’etre was unknown. But, so are the methods and practices of the current Iraqi government, at least to us. We do not know that it is more just than the previous administration.

On the second count, we cannot say that Iraq is more peaceful. Certainly, the killing is no longer limited to the depraved actions of the state. But now, death squads and suicide bombers share in the terror. What is the net casualty rate?

Saddam’s execution should not hang among our laurels, but remind us of how much our government has failed in this disastrous folly.

-- KDR

My favorite bureaucrat

is David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, who is trying to alert the general public to the US Government's perilous fiscal condition. Check out this excerpt from Comptroller General Walker's December 24 letter to the Washington Post:

"The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.

If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government.

To put the figures in perspective, $50 trillion is $440,000 per American household and is more than nine times as much as the median household income."

Of course, if a private company kept it's books the same way the government does they would be locked up for violating Sarbanes-Oxley.

Thanks to Radley Balko for bringing this to my attention.

Free Speech Willies

Does anyone else find this the height of chutzpah?

Senators Snowe and Rockefeller have sent a letter to ExxonMobil's Chairman and CEO to urge that that corporation cease funding organizations that question the magnitude and threat of global warming. Personally, I'm not a scientist, so it's hard for me to come down strongly on global warming, one way or the other. I'm certainly am concerned with pollution and its devastating effects on the environment, I just can't assess the Al Gore view of global warming. It certainly seems prudent to take steps to stem the chemical assault on the Earth and its inhabitants.

Not, however, why I write. It strikes me as over-the-top that senators are now urging corporations to defund public policy organizations. If senators urged Microsoft to stop funding aid to Africa, I'd probably squak louder, but this sort of jawboning seems entirely inappropriate.

-Robert Capozzi

The Seinfeld Presidency

The news of Gerald Ford’s death is sad, but it does give us an opportunity to reflect. Was he, as some suggest, a bumbling, limited man who got to the White House by accident? Or was he something different?

Recall that Ford, then House Minority Leader, was appointed Vice President by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace. He then became President after Nixon himself resigned in disgrace.

All indications are that Nixon was insane. Paranoia seemed to rule his head. Pardoning Nixon was an act of compassion by Ford, as I see it. Nixon was already in a prison of his own making, a 20th century Hamlet.

Ford was in many ways a “weak” president. How he got the job was unprecedented, and his perceived power was consequently limited.

But was he really “weak” and “do nothing”? More importantly, are “weakness” and “do nothingness” bad things?

Under Ford, the UN-doing of Vietnam was completed. Ford used the power of the veto – an UN-doing – more than almost all presidents in history.

For those who are fans of the TV series Seinfeld, recall that George convinces Jerry that their TV pilot should be about “nothing.” In our “go, go, do, do” culture, that sounds absurd, but is it? To my way of thinking, doing nothing has its virtues. It’s a continuation of the Hippocratic Oath (“First do no harm”) and the ancient Tao.

Perhaps the real absurdity is “activism.” We – as a culture – tend to celebrate the “doers” and “achievers.” Yet, more times than not, doers and achievers do more harm than good. Sometimes they have publicists who spin their behavior in the best light possible, so the veil of mythmaking makes this observation less obvious, but no less true.

This begins to explain why most historians rank Woodrow Wilson a great president, and Calvin Coolidge a less-than-great one. The opposite is true, from where I sit. Yes, Coolidge “accomplished” little, yet by virtually all measures, the Coolidge years were among the country’s best.

Ford was more a Coolidge than a Wilson. He “accomplished” little except to triage ill-conceived government policies like Vietnam. As pols go, he was dignified and even-tempered. His record of undoing was not stellar, but considering the context of the times, Ford was a near-great president in my book.

He was the Seinfeld President, and for that, his memory should be honored. We could use more Seinfeld Presidents, now more than ever. First, do nothing. Next, undo what is clearly not working. On rare occasions, do, but do with humility and compassion.

-Robert Capozzi

Sexy Nurses Illegal?

First, Texas tried to ban "sexy cheerleading," now the busybodies are going after "sexy nurses." What is this world coming to? Can we get Dr. Paul to introduce a "Sexy Nurse Protection Act" for 2007?

On a serious note, efforts to restrict free speech may seem amusing when they pertain to sexy nurses, but when it comes to negative political ads, they are no joking matter.

Do the "right" thing

Bridging on Paul Gessing's take on the Barlett column, I've got a different view.

At day's end, what one does or doesn't do politically makes little difference. Be an activist, a politician, work for a think tank, simply read up on current events, odds are VERY low that any one person will "make a difference." Of course, there are exceptions. Gandhi comes to mind on the plus side, Lenin on the minus, for example.

Trying to second, third, and fourth guess the appropriate strategy to "plug in to" seems like folly. Odds are very high that the current state of affairs will drift as they will. The forces of liberty will tug things one way, the forces of coercion the other. Sometimes one will dominate a bit, other times the other. Rare is it historically that a third party, for instance, catches fire and the imagination of large numbers of people, but it does and can happen.

It's of course Bartlett's right to criticize from the sidelines, but let's make no mistake, that's all he's doing...criticizing. Perhaps he should spend more time actually organizing the "Libertarian League" that he suggests. Perhaps that's the right thing.

-Robert Capozzi

Honorable Mention in the Pantheon

The top 5 songs, albums and movies seems not enough. My honorable mention list below:

NEXT GREATEST SONGS
What's So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding, Elvis Costello
Rock the Casbah, The Clash
Emperor's New Clothes, Sinead O'Connor
Theme from Shaft, Isaac Hayes
It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine), REM

NEXT GREATEST ALBUMS (no 'best ofs')
The Pretenders, The Pretenders
The Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd
Tapestry, Carole King
Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
Rumors, Fleetwood Mac

NEXT GREATEST MOVIES:
The Wizard of Oz
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Apocalypse Now (the horror, the horror)
The Godfather
Big

For those who didn't see it, Carl Milsted has offered his list in the comments section.

-Robert Capozzi

Bruce Bartlett Takes a Hatchet to the Libertarian Party (and other third parties as well)

Bruce Bartlett has been writing about the libertarian movement a lot recently. In his most recent missive, he calls the Libertarian Party "worse than a waste of time," and claims that "for libertarian ideas to advance, the Libertarian Party must go completely out of business. It must cease to exist, period. No more candidates, no more wasted votes and no more disillusioned libertarian activists."

Despite my having dabbled in Libertarian politics and having attended the conventions in Portland and Atlanta, I tend to agree with him. We'd all probably be better off if libertarians and even the Naderites and Greens decided to work to make their own movements stronger. Perhaps an influx of Greens would lead to the Democratic Party adopting a more enlightened position on the Drug War and perhaps the Republicans would actually support smaller government once in awhile.

Brave New World Watch II

Observations on our current situation courtesy of Clyde Wilson:

"Our government's peppy "public service" messages on the radio are a good measure of where we are now, as my daily seven-minute news exposure keeps me depressingly aware. The latest recruiting enticement for the imperial legions exhorts people to sign up and defend America in appreciation for the glories of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, and pick-up basketball. Can you count how many things are wrong with that statement? If I have to explain it, you are already beyond hope. A few days later, the Department of Health and Human Services promised that we can improve our sports performance if we will only eat our vegetables. Thanks Mom, but it takes a federal department."

Brave New World Watch

Don't think that by starving yourself supper-model thin you will escape the attentions of the health police. Just weeks after New York City banned trans fats, the city of Milan has announced a ban on "ultra-thin" models from its fashion shows. I predict we will soon here cries for the American government to do something about these wafer-thin models and the epidemic of ultra-thinness they are inspiring. Many of these calls for a "war on thinness" will come from the same people who are currently calling for the government to do more to stem the "obesity epidemic."

The Pantheon

When Free Liberals get together socially, the conversation invariably turns to what we call "The Pantheon." That is, movies and music that move us. Stipulating that there's no accounting for taste, my Christmas gift to you, gentle reader, is to offer my list:

GREATEST SONGS
Get Together, The Youngbloods
Every Day is a Winding Road, Sheryl Crow
Lucky Man, The Verve
Behind Blue Eyes, The Who
Gut Feeling, DEVO

GREATEST ALBUMS (no "best ofs")
Remain in Light, Talking Heads
Abbey Road, The Beatles
Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones
Deja Vu, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, U2

GREATEST MOVIES
American Movie
Lost in America
American Beauty
The Matrix
Blue Velvet

Happy Holidays!

- Robert Capozzi

Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

I have long felt that the ongoing shortage of body organs for transplants is an artificial result of federal regulations that prohibit any financial incentives for those who -- upon death -- donate their bodies to save the lives of others. As is so often the case when government policies fail (the United Kingdom and Canada both have similar "no-compensation" policies), additional regulations are adopted. The UK and Canada are now considering rules that would essentially allow the state to "steal" the organs of the dead. The authors of this article suggest we go the other direction by allowing financial incentives for those who choose organ donation.

This seems to me like "Economics 101," but financial incentives are the only proven way to create desired results while also respecting personal freedom.

War. Huh! What is it good for?

Paul Gessing links to an excellent article by Doug Bandow on anti-war.com. Yes, we all agree, Iraq is a disaster, on many, many levels.

Bandow goes further: That humanitarian wars may sound better, but are just as injurious as unprovoked interventions like Vietnam and Iraq. He says: “[H]umanitarian intervention rarely has humanitarian results.” That’s probably true, but does that make the notion of humanitarian war something to oppose always? And, if we oppose all humanitarian wars, do we oppose them as vociferously as, say, the Iraq War?

I’d like to start a dialog on this, because while I used to agree with Bandow, I’m having serious doubts about that view. Bandow, for instance, cites the situation in Kosovo, noting that the unintended consequences led to more atrocities. I’m not surprised by this. War is a dirty, messy, killing business, and no matter how it’s waged, there almost always collateral damage. So, it appears, Bandow overstates. Near as I can tell, the Balkans have begun to stabilize, which I believe all would agree is a good thing. If the standard is overnight success, Bandow’s correct. But who ever expected instant results?

The theoretical case for some US involvement in humanitarian efforts goes something like this:

* American taxpayers object to genocide anywhere. If asked: “Would you support a small percentage of your tax dollars to aid to stop a genocide?” I suspect that 95% of taxpayers would say Yes. Is this an ABSOLUTE justification for humanitarian war? No. It’s a relative one. Any government function will have some objection, including courts and cops.

Despite all its dysfunction, the US effectively has a treaty with the UN. Treaties are constitutionally authorized, despite the fact that, in most cases, I personally suggest the US should exit most or all of its current treaties, as they are relics of a different time. In theory, an international organization like the UN should be prepared to step in when genocide is taking place, if at all practicable. In specific cases, one might object to a UN intervention, but the question is: On balance, is this a role that is supportable? Unless one is a pacifist or an anarchist, most would say Yes.

This begins to illustrate the unworkability of absolutism. Emerson taught us the difference between “consistency” and “a foolish consistency,” the latter of which he called “the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Perhaps that was Ronald Reagan was getting at when he said: “Never say never.”

So, to answer Edwin Starr’s (and, perhaps for you Seinfeld fans out there, Tolstoy’s) question, what is war good for?: It might be good for ending atrocities, on balance.

-Robert Capozzi

“Dead Wrong”

The Free Liberal’s old friend Eric Dondero has commented that not only am I “wrong,” I’m “dead wrong.” This is in reference to my suggestion that “Liberty is ultimately neither left nor right, but Libertarians tend to sound like extreme right-wingers with a few left-sounding issues.”

The English language being as fluid as it is, perhaps Dondero is correct. Myself, I prefer less judgmental language, such as “I disagree” or “I have a different opinion,” but Dondero is always free to exercise his First Amendment rights.

Still, the point I was making was a bit more nuanced than perhaps Dondero perceived. As my essay, The Transpartisan Triangle, explains, to be “right” is to be “elitist.” To be “left” is to be “egalitarian.” At any given time, leaning “right” or “left” is a distraction to the real prize, which is liberty. When we lose focus on the prize, the state of affairs drifts toward statism.

My general sense is that the thrust of Dondero’s point is correct: libertarians have lineage to a right-ish, elitist lean. I suppose I’d be for leaning right if it brought about more liberty. It hasn’t worked too well, I dare say.

The Free Liberal argument is that liberty may well be best achieved by balancing elitist and egalitarian considerations in the court of public opinion. Will it work? Time will tell.

-Robert Capozzi

Libertarian Warmongers?

I have always beleived that the concept of the libertarian warmonger or even hawkish libertarian was an impossible contradiction, but Doug Bandow makes a very compelling and thorough argument as to why this must be the case here. More than any other single issue, I think the Iraq War has been responsible for the libertarian defection from the GOP that Bruce Bartlett believes to be occurring.

Regardless of which party the libertarian vote shifts to, I hope that they do so in great enough numbers to have a real impact.

Hands Tied, Or Reassessment?

Adam Baney, fresh from his propoganda jolt from Fox News, makes some interesting points in his most recent comment.

America's unwillingness to do what is necessary, especially in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, to win a war has tied the hands of our troops, and left us wide open to criticism from the rest of the world.

I don't disagree with this statement, per se. It seems patently obvious that a nation SHOULD do its best to fight wars of defense to WIN. Such wars are "necessary," in my view, to both "insure domestic tranquility" and to "provide for the common defense."

The question is: Were Vietnam or Iraq "necessary," and who decides if they are?

No, in my judgment, neither was necessary. Who is to decide is NOT -- per the Constitution -- the "decider in chief," as W thinks of himself. It's very clearly Congress.

I can't vouch for the sanity of James Baker, despite Baney's armchair pronouncement. I've never been a big fan, actually. What Baker and the Iraq Study Group HAVE done, it seems clear, is to reassess the Iraq mission AS IT STANDS NOW. Increasingly, the view on the ground is grim. Putting down a civil war halfway around the world would require a massive influx of troops, troops we simply don't have. Yes, of course the US COULD mobilize enough troops to "get the job done," but if the premise is mistaken, the outcome will no doubt be unacceptable.

Baney, perhaps, thinks US taxpayers should pony up another $1 trillion or more to execute a strategy that was flawed from the outset.

I -- and most voters -- simply do not agree. I pray that our "decider in chief" has the maturity to change his mind.

-Robert Capozzi

Barr None?

Interesting news yesterday coming out of the Libertarian Party (LP). Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr has bolted the GOP and joined the LP as a regional representative of the National Committee of the LP. Although Barr was once a leader among congressional Republicans in Congress, pushing for, among other things, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he appears to have moved in a much more Libertarian direction since leaving Congress. Barr is involved in BOTH the National Rifle Association AND the American Civil Liberties Union. That on its face seems quite transpartisan, a vital premise here at the Free Liberal.

At a time when the GOP is going through a major soul-searching, it's refreshing that someone of Barr's caliber has moved to the nation's largest third party. Perhaps the GOP has so hopelessly lost its way, could Barr's bolting be the beginning of something bigger?

Time will tell. Ideally, the next major figure to bolt would be a Democrat. Historically, Libertarians take positions that are both "left" and "right." So, a D figure like Barr moving to the LP would signal that the LP could be home for the politically disenfranchised. Liberty is ultimately neither left nor right, but Libertarians tend to sound like extreme right-wingers with a few left-sounding issues. Barr may add to this perception, in some ways. However, the LP does seem to be casting off its old dogmatic, way-outside-the-mainstream millstone in recent years. Some want to make the LP into a real third party, not unlike the GOP itself did in the 19th century.

-Robert Capozzi

55 Years for Weed?

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, last week, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the mandatory 55-year prison sentence that a lower court imposed on a man who was convicted of carrying a handgun during three marijuana deals in Utah.

By refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ensured that 27-year-old Weldon Angelos will spend just about the rest of his life behind bars for selling three eight-ounce bags of marijuana to an undercover informant.

As his attorneys noted, the sentence he will serve is harsher than the sentence for raping a child — or the sentence for detonating a bomb aboard an aircraft.

Even the federal judge who was required to issue the mandatory minimum sentence called it “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.” Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court let the sentence stand without comment. You can read more about this abrogation of justice here.

The Matter of $1

I got to experience some free-market inefficiency at the local Safeway today, where a lady, whose club card failed to work, held up the line for nearly 20 minutes to claim the $1 she would have saved with the club card.

The gentleman in front of me and I discussed how time is money and that with the price of time in the DC-area, it was tremendously wasteful for all of us in line to stand there while the woman reclaimed her money.

I even offered to give the lady a dollar to get her out of the way, a suggestion which neither she nor the cashier seemed to understand, as neither replied.

Perhaps looking at the situation holistically would reveal that in fact the situation was efficient. Perhaps the money I save from Safeway’s corporate policies – including the policy which deprives their employees of independent judgment – reduce my overall costs.

However, I’ve seen a lot of lines held up by one person’s payment dispute. Food stamps, coupons, and price inconsistencies have all been culprits. I would hope that the executives at these companies consider that they are increasing the price of their goods when people are required to stand in line. If they want to compete on price, they need to compete on time, too.

~KDR

Paranoia's Pull?

For those interested in the beneath-the-surface arguments over what to do about the Iraq quagmire, read this.

It seems a great exposition on the neocon argument: Jim Baker's missing the big picture. Iran is evil. We MUST stop them before they get nukes. Talking to them, involving them in sorting out the Iraq situation is a disaster in the making. If the US has the "will" to impose its hegemony over the region, all will be well.

Is this hysterical talk? Articulate yet paranoid rambling?

Or is it the truth?

Up to you, kind reader.

-Robert Capozzi

It's Official: We're in Lame Duck Season

If there is any question that the Bush Administration is a lame duck, this report on Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) should add to the case that even Republican senators are willing to tell truths that Compound W still isn't getting.

Check out THESE strong words:

* "That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore."
* "...I do believe [Bush] is guilty of believing bad intelligence and giving us the same."

Be careful if you're standing near the exit, you may get trampled.

-Robert Capozzi

James Baker: “Mop Up Man”

The Iraq Study Group, headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, has made its recommendation. These folks are analogous to “mop up men.” In baseball, the mop-up man is typically a long reliever who rarely pitches. When a game is lost by the 4th through 8th innings, the mop-up man is brought in to finish out the game. It almost doesn’t matter how the mop-up man pitches; his job is simply to throw enough pitches so the team can get to the showers.

The Baker boys seem to make some sense: Turn the Iraq quagmire over to the Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians. Let them settle the ancient Shiite/Sunni squabbles. The eggs are broken, and the US may not even be able to make omelets. The point of the Iraq Study Group is to not break any more eggs, i.e., to minimize further US casualties.

All things considered, that’s about the best we can hope for. The lessons of Vietnam seem to slowly be seeping into official Washington’s head. Finally.

-Robert Capozzi

Important new book

Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health by John Berlau. Berlau, one of the best investigative journalists in the libertarian movement, details how increases in state power done in the name of "protecting the environment" actually harms "trees, wildlife, and people."

Buy a copy today before it is banned by Senate.

Bipartisan thuggery

Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe write to ExxonMobil's new CEO urging him to stop supporting organizations, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who challenge the accepted wisdom on global warming . According to these distinguished public servants, ExxonMobil's support of these global warming "skeptics" is damaging America's international image by making it seem America is "insensitive" to concerns about climate change.

If those who doubt the official position on climate change are harming America's international image why not declare them enemy combatants and subject them to indefinite detention? Of course, I am joking, I am sure Senators Rockefeller and Snowe don't want to use state power to punish ExxonMobil or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They just want to remind ExxonMobil that the US Government is like a family and you know what happens when you go against the family...

“…we all must sacrifice for freedom…”

Adam Baney seems to carry the water for contemporary conservative thought well. There was a time – not that long ago – when conservatives did not believe that, as Baney states, “we all must sacrifice for freedom.” From Goldwater to Reagan, conservatives used to believe that freedom was our birthright. Apparently, Baney no longer does.

Sacrificial conservatism ties together nicely with cradle-to-grave liberalism. This begins to explain why Bush is the biggest of the big spenders. Barry and Ron would be – I suspect – very disappointed.

9/11 was as dastardly a deed in my book as any. I believe most hold that view. The question is: What is the appropriate response? Who did it? Why did they do it?

We free liberals and libertarians by and large believe that the world is NOT black and white, contra Baney’s assertion. I certainly don’t. Based on the evidence that’s available, 9/11 was perpetrated by a relatively small band of zealots. Their commitment to their twisted jihad is one that should be met and countered. How that should be met and countered is most certainly an open question. The Bush Administration has most liberally marshaled disparate data to conclude that meeting and countering the “jihad” leads to: Attack Iraq. This conclusion, in my opinion, was a profound overreaction. Increasingly, the country is drawing a similar conclusion.

Baney and this virulent new strain of thought that is somehow called “conservative” continually change the subject on matters of war. As Baney states:

“I have never once argued against the constitution, or on the importance of government in the decision to go to war. My point is that our leaders, specifically, our Commander-in-Chief, must be able to respond immediately to any situation, as it arises. In times like these, where partisan squabbling could delay the necessity of action, our leaders must not be tied down to a republican vs. democrat grind.”

This, despite the fact that I have already granted that the Commander in Chief should have some latitude in defending the nation before military action is certified with a formal declaration of war. In the run up to Iraq II, there was quite obviously and, frankly, indisputably, time to draw up an actual declaration. Baney is at least honest when he says “our leaders must not be tied down.”

Baney, likely seeing that his point is weak, then attempts to depend on the fact that the Founders and Framers were not small-d democrats. Quite so. Nor, however, were they monarchists. Since:

a) The Constitution requires a declaration of war to fight wars.
b) There was time to declare war. It was not an exigent circumstance.
c) Iraq is a war. Therefore:
d) The Iraq War is unconstitutional.

I would have more respect for Baney’s position if he granted that, yes, in the case of the Iraq War, it would have been far preferable had a declaration been made. I can even buy that, given the precedent of all US wars since WWII, the Iraq Wars technical waging on the strength of a mere “resolution” is not a crime or misdemeanor. It is, however, a very poor practice and precedent to fight wars without Congress’s explicit imprimatur, I most humbly submit.

No one is suggesting that I’m aware of that the US government should not do its best to defend all Americans. To the contrary. I have no doubt that there are people in places like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia who wish Americans harm. They may even have been in some ways in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Attacking Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, however, does nothing to defend America. If anything, it increases the likelihood that 9/11 will be repeated. The lack of proportionality of attacking Saudi Arabia and Indonesia applies to Iraq. Meanwhile, the identified hotbed of Al Qaeda – Afghanistan – loses focus.

This sorry outcome, in my opinion, is senseless.

-Robert Capozzi

Article I, Section 8

As a blog committed to transpartisanship, TFL enjoys exchanging ideas, even with those with whom we disagree. Adam Baney, whose latest comments use terms that are associated with great frequency with “neoconservative” thinkers, seems to bristle a bit at the label. I retract the use of the label in his case.

Still, when an author uses the term “get us all killed,” that is rhetoric that neocons use, frequently so. It is, in my opinion, noxious, overstated rhetoric, designed to incite fear and a sense of vengeance among the American people. Baney himself has not countered my point that the US is, at this stage in history, “non-conquestable.” Other members of the nuclear club could inflict grave damage, but the US nuclear-weapon stockpile makes such an attack unfathomable, as the US response would be cataclysmic. Hundreds of millions of Islamic jihadists or, say, Chinese infantry landing, say, in Baltimore or San Francisco and fanning out across the 50 states is equally unfathomable.

In and of itself, that is a remarkable historic achievement. We live in the first nation in history that seems utterly immune from foreign military takeover. (I suppose the “Martians” could do it, but let’s put that one aside where it should be: On the science fiction shelves.)

This “get us killed” rhetoric sickens me in its overstatement. I can’t know, but the neocons that popularized it in recent years are dealing in the basest form of manipulative demonization in many, many years. It’s the worst sort of “chaff”; we here at TFL prefer to deal in “wheat.”

Some specific responses seem in order:

Should the leaders of our government consult with Robert Capozzi every time they feel there is a threat to national security?

No. While I’d be happy to serve in that capacity, it’s not at all what I’m suggesting, nor is this silly thought remotely likely.

My point is that our government must be able to do the job it's intended to do.

Yes! Yes! Yes! The intention is what “our government” should do, and, equally important, what it should NOT do. Baney may need a basic civics lesson, but one senses he’s at least read – at some point – the US Constitution. There, the intention of what the government’s job is laid out reasonably clearly. Relevant here is Article I, Section 8, which states: “The Congress shall have power to…declare war.”

Why is so hard to understand that it is impossible to have a framework of "adequate responses" to every world event. You write as if we should enact laws and guidelines for every conceivable event, then respond by the book.

It’s not at all hard to understand, but thank you. We can talk about exigent circumstances and give many examples of situations where it seems reasonable that the executive branch could use force to repel an invasion of the US, and even its embassies, or possibly even its allies. Does anyone disagree, however, that the US Constitution is the law of the land? Or that this is a nation of laws, not men, and certainly not autocrats? Or that the President has had ample time to ask Congress for a FORMAL declaration of war, and that Congress has had ample time to vote on it?

This country is not where it is today because we measured and calculated our response and took everyone's feelings in mind, we are the greatest nation because we ha(d) the wisdom to elect those willing to protect us.

Interesting way of putting it. Mine’s different. The US is a great nation by historical standards for entirely different reasons. Here are some of MY favorites:

• “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
• “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Notice that powers are “derived” from the “governed.” Perhaps I missed something, but a constitutional republic is supposed to work whereby representatives of the people vote on matters of state, checked by the laws and, in the US’s case, the Constitution itself. A hardy and generally visionary bunch came up with this formula in the 18th century, and while I might personally quibble with some of the specifics, it seems to have worked pretty well. It certainly works far better than a monarchy.

The “blessings of liberty” are at stake here. Americans are waking up from the fearful fog of 9/11, and connecting the dots that the premise for the Iraq War was a pernicious fabrication, based on a range of miscalculations, misstatements, and mis-application of our own laws. It was not an act of “protection”; instead, it was the latest in a series of executive usurpations of powers that are, at best, extra-legal.

It’s time to get back to the basics.

-Robert Capozzi

Clarity of Purpose

Based on Adam Baney’s latest, it’s clear that I am completely misunderstood. Baney sleighs straw men deftly.

My take on wars is to avoid them when possible, for the obvious reason of avoiding unjustified death. But war should also be avoided because wars often lead to unintended consequences. Expediencies being what they are, assessing the history of wars and whether they were justified or not is tricky business. Personally, I do not condemn historical figures for what they did in wars, but I do suggest we do our best to learn from their mistakes.

There seems to be three tests that capture the purpose for waging war:

1) Is there a clear and present danger to the nation?
2) Is the response to that danger proportionate?
3) Is there a clear and compelling humanitarian justification for intervening?

To clear up Baney’s framing of my views, I believe that US involvement in WWII was justified. The nation was attacked. Germany declared war on the US. The US response was generally proportionate, although specific tactics strike me as uncalled for.

As an aside, Baney’s point: “A large majority of this country's ancestry comes from Europe...safe to say we all had a stake in WW2,” seems odd. German, Italian and Japanese Americans are more numerous than English and French Americans, so if Baney wants to introduce “tribal” considerations, he appears to be on thin ice. The Irish remained neutral, and, if I recall, Mexico was, too. Africa was also neutral.

I note that Baney does not define what he means by “stake.” It appears that he’s suggesting that because many Americans claim ancestry from Europe that therefore the US must intervene in European wars. This is a polyglot nation of people and their descendants who chose to be Americans. For example, I’m half Irish, one quarter Italian, and one quarter German Jew. Is Baney suggesting that half of me would have preferred neutrality, one quarter to side with the Axis, and one quarter wanting to stop Hitler? Unlikely, yet Baney refuses that define what he means by stake. He repeats this notion that I advocate that the US remain an island, which is simply false.

Of course, at this point in history, the Europeans seem to have finally ended their centuries of warring. That history is what in part drove millions from Europe to America. War in Europe led to death, destruction, and poverty. Many of our forebears had quite enough of that dysfunction, and fled to the US’s far more placid shores.

The Swiss model – perhaps an extreme example of neutrality – has worked very well for the Swiss for centuries. Their neutrality in WWII was no aberration. Condemning their continuing the Swiss culture’s strong bias against foreign wars seems highly judgmental. I do note that Swiss-Americans are rare and under-represented in the US compared with other European ethnicities.

Whether the ever-shifting alliances of Old Europe made sense historically, we now live in a very different world. Nuclear weapons and other WMD have radically changed the equation, yet few seem to have detected the paradigm shift. Perhaps the US needed to ally to ensure its survival, it no longer does. This is not to say that the US is an “island,” only that militarily, the US cannot be overrun. Other nations are similarly non-conquestable.

Stepping back, today’s “alliances” are not alliances of survival. They are alliances of interest. They smack of a noblesse oblige mentality. NATO, for example, attempts to use a combination of force and suasion to advance ill-defined agendas away from Europe. Of course, NATO itself is dysfunctional on its own terms, with the tangled web of the players (France comes to mind) jockeying for influence over NATO policy that, more often than not, is less about global peace and more about national economic interest.

What Baney and neoconservatives don’t offer us is a real, clear statement of purpose for war. War is something that “great” nations do, it appears. I could not disagree more. War should always be a last resort. It should be checked and balanced, requiring at minimum a declaration of war by Congress. This constitutional mechanism is there for a reason. The Framers recognized that a blank-check war power is a dangerous thing. An unchecked executive branch can and has dispatched American soldiers for false, unjustified reasons.

Whether the clear and present danger and proportionality tests should apply to US allies is also an open question. Was Iraq a clear and present danger to a US ally? I was not convinced of this prior to the war and now. Indeed, I find it appalling that there were people in and around the Bush Administration who were on record advocating military action against Iraq prior to 9/11. Their motives seemed to involve convoluted and complex “geopolitical” considerations.

So far, the US has poked the hornet’s nest, and somehow or other, the Bush Administration seems surprised that the hornets are still stinging. Never underestimate the power of denial, or the siren-song of hubris.

The humanitarian war is a relatively new phenomenon. WWII was not one. Stopping the German Holocaust was not the stated purpose of WWII. The US did not stop the USSR’s Holocaust in Ukraine, either, or Mao’s exterminations during the Cultural Revolution. So far, the US remains out of Darfur, though the nation has recently intervened in the Balkans with the stated purpose of stopping a genocide.

How the humanitarian model for war evolves is an open question. I am skeptical that a reasonable model can be developed. Thus far, the UN has proven to be a highly dysfunctional organization, as was the League of Nations. That said, the US’s largely unilateral approach seems mixed at best.

I remain perplexed, however, that the US does not employ its own Constitution for waging humanitarian wars. It makes me wonder: What is the executive branch afraid of? If a humanitarian war is “righteous,” then, per the Constitution, should not they play by the rules they swore to uphold? If tax dollars, soldiers and sailors are to be “spent,” should not – at bare minimum – the citizen’s representatives certify the “righteousness”?

-Robert Capozzi