Is Hillary a Neocon?

Hillary Clinton has taken a "conservative" strategy throughout her campaign for president, both in style and in substance. She hasn't come out with many policy goals that could be called truly innovative, but at the same time she has tried to play both sides of the fence on a number of issues, especially foreign policy. Most recently, she pleased many hawks by refusing to sit down with some of America's enemies.

Ed Crane over at the Cato Institute recently made a compelling case that, rather than being a left-liberal, Hillary Clinton is most comfortable with the "national greatness" neocons. Read Crane's argument here.

Changing of the Guard

Robert Capozzi Free Liberal Editor

An associated problem, is not just choosing good writing, but finding individuals who have the right mix of free time, good judgment, and a willingness/desire to assist with the selection and editing of articles. In this, I have been extremely lucky, especially in meeting Bob Capozzi in early 2005.

Bob has been our most prolific blogger and has successively taken over more and more of the responsibilities of editing this publication. In fact, in the last year, there would have been no Free Liberal at all if it were not for Bob’s tireless efforts. Today, I’m pleased to announce that Bob Capozzi will be recognized for a role that he is already fulfilling, as Editor of The Free Liberal.

In taking this role, Bob is fully-responsible for the furthering the Free Liberal vision and message. I believe that I could not find someone who understands this vision in both mind and spirit better than he does. Bob is a true believer in peace – both in the political idea and in pursuing as a personal life goal. Bob’s sophistication in multi-dimensional thinking and free-market economics enable him to attend to the goal of peace with more than empty sloganeering. Ever a contrarian, Bob will certainly not fall victim to the traps of partisanship or other kinds of teamistic ideology. This openness in his character is essential to our mission which aims to bring classical and modern liberals together to jointly address public policy problems.

I will step back and focus my efforts on getting The Center for Liberty and Community fully-funded and organizationally fit. I will work in support of Bob to bring the resources needed to grow the publication.

For now, “All hail the editor!”

/KDR

Ron Paul and the Libertarian National Convention

A question which I've found interesting is how Libertarian Party members will respond to the Ron Paul campaign at the Libertarian National Convention. The best data I've got available to determine LP member intent indicates the following:

Once again, Ron Paul is the big winner in the latest LibertarianLists.com survey. When asked about their presidential preference, 73.5 percent of the libertarians who participated in the online survey chose Dr. Paul as their presidential preference. This is an increase of 3.9 percent from the previous LibertarianLists survey.

Among the 501 self-identified members of the Libertarian Party, 76.4 percent chose Paul, an increase of 4.2 percent from the previous survey period.

In addition to the general presidential preference question, the survey participants who identified themselves as LP members were asked two specific questions dealing with Ron Paul and the convention.

The first question asked: "Assuming that Ron Paul is no longer in the presidential race at the time of the Libertarian Party presidential nominating convention, for which Libertarian Party presidential candidate would you cast your nominating vote?"

54.7 percent of the participants answered "Undecided," 6.4 percent chose NOTA and 5 percent selected "Other," while the remaining 33.9 percent selected one of 12 LP candidates. It's assumed that the majority of the 54.7 percent and some of the NOTAs maintain support for Paul.

The other question was more telling: "Assuming that Ron Paul is running competitively as a Republican candidate at the time of the Libertarian Party presidential nominating convention, for which Libertarian Party presidential candidate would you cast your nominating vote?"

In this case, 50.5 percent said they would "Would try to change the bylaws in order for Ron Paul to receive the Libertarian Party nomination or become engaged in some sort of effort to draft Ron Paul as the Libertarian presidential nominee."

23.3 percent were "Undecided," 4.6 percent chose NOTA and 2.6 percent chose "Other." Only 19 percent actually supported one of the 12 LP candidates.

Libertarian Party bylaws clearly provide that, under current circumstances, Dr. Paul is not eligible for the LP nomination. However, with data like these, it seems quite possible that convention delegates may decide to change the bylaws in order to somehow endorse or support Ron Paul's campaign.

Full baseline data here. Related perspective on the LP presidential candidates here.

Talk to those we don't agree with? Heaven Forbid!

Barack Obama is not a believer in limited government, nor has he promised not to attack Iran, but during the recent Democratic debate, he showed me why he is much less scary than Hillary Clinton.

Obama said he would meet with some of our government's adversaries including: Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue President Bush's policy of not talking to anyone who is not a confirmed "Bushie." If you like the way our country is being run now, you'll love a Hillary Clinton Administration.

NY Times on Ron Paul

The New York Times has always been my least favorite "leading" newspaper, but I may have to give them another chance. This Sunday, July 22, they had an incredibly thorough and very fair article about Ron Paul and his candidacy for the presidency.

While I don't agree with Ron on everything -- his approaches to immigration and trade being two of the big ones -- as the article makes clear, he is the only candidate for the presidency that actually reads and understands the Constitution. Perhaps someday we'll have several candidates of both parties who agree on the basic framework of the Constitution and someone who shares my belief in free movement of people and goods will run for office. Until then, Ron Paul is the standard-bearer for liberty.

Also, Reason had a decent article on Dr. Paul on their website recently. Since some previous criticism from myself and others, they have taken a more favorable, respectful approach to Dr. Paul's candidacy.

Bush Backs Down on Torture

Here's some news likely to upset eight of the ten top GOP presidential wannabes:

President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

There's one minor flaw, though.

The legislation said the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

On the "Edge"

While I generally agree with Paul Gessing and his blog here, how we frame the war in Iraq is important. Those libertarians who support the Iraq War seem to sidestep the legal point that its declaration was -- well -- extra legal.

I generally read Barnett mostly to be saying that one can be libertarian and pro Iraq War, mistakes and all. Here I agree, although I'm anti-war. The nation was attacked by a stateless enemy, one that is causing mayhem the world over, including here in the US. Personally, I find Barnett's minimization of the "mistakes" to be understated...by a lot. I suspect history will show that Iraq will be a bigger mistake than Vietnam.

What we cannot know is what history would have found had the US restricted its response to ONLY hunting for Osama, which is Dr. Paul's view, and mine. It would be nice to have a thought-experiment machine, but we don't.

One observation: As long as the US economy continues to chug along as it has, continuing the war seems "easier." Sad to say, but the body counts don't seem to be enough to make Americans demand an end to this senseless. bloody escapade. The war remains largely an abstraction, one that people seem to grudgingly accept, even if they don't support it any longer.

-Robert Capozzi

Bizarro Libertarianism

It is hard for me to believe that there are still self-proclaimed libertarians out there who support the Iraq War specifically and an interventionist foreign policy specifically. Justin Raimondo has an excellent piece attacking Randy Barnett, a Georgetown professor, self-proclaimed libertarian, and warmonger

First and foremost, even if a true believer in limited government could rationalize the Iraq War, any moron who reads the Constitution can understand that Congress holds war-making power and no such declaration has ever been made. While the Bush Administrations "reasons" for going to war were transparently bad, perhaps there will be a day in the future where a president will have better reasons for going to war. My position is the same: only an actual declaration from Congress...

I'd think this concept would be pretty easy to grasp for someone of Barnett's intellectual pedigree, but maybe not.

Citizen's Dividend and Health Insurance

Tarvok, as always, provides thoughtful comments. Call it a "stopgap" or perhaps an approximation of justice, the citizen's dividend has great appeal. Combine it with the federal government offering its employee's insurance plan to all citizens, and that starts to feel like a win/win to me. The notion of the feds negotiating with private insurance companies as a kind of insurance buying club surely has some downsides, but, on balance, I'd certainly prefer that to the current mess.

One point of clarification on Tarvok's post:

"As it is, we're basically stuck with whomever our employers choose. Of course, our employers are going to choose the cheapest option, not the best (since they're not the ones that actually have to use it)."

Yes, the employee is "stuck," but no, it's not the case that companies always choose the "cheapest" option. Indeed, many corporations offer very extensive, some might say "gold plated", health insurance benefits. That may have contributed to the cost escalation over the years, as more and more users of services were disconnected from the cost of the service.

-Robert Capozzi

The Chasm of Abstraction

Yes, Tarvok, the current "systems" of health and eduction are indeed a mess, and are indeed not free market. Not even close.

Both health and education are, however, aspects of life that people hold near and dear. Free marketeers seem, however, to be stuck in the chasm of abstraction and, perhaps, in denial. They seem to fixate on why single-payer systems don't work all that well either or they make the case the the current system isn't "free market."

These cases should be made. But it should not stop there. Otherwise, it appears that free marketeers are condoning the status quo and insensitive to the plight of the uninsured. Further, I've yet to see a thoughtful response to the point Sicko makes, that insurance companies are -- as a matter of policy -- denying benefits and then hiding behind the legal system, daring poor people to challenge the denial of benefits in the courts.

Unlike education, health often involves life and death issues. With costs escalating as they are, there should be a sense of urgency here, yet I don't see it.

How do we -- as a matter of policy -- allow the uninsured to get at least SOME insurance? We can point to the reasons that health is not free market, how charity is better than force, etc., but until that problem is fixed in a tangible way, I doubt progress will be made.

-Robert Capozzi

In a free market...

Thanks to Tarvok for his comments on my blog Notes on Sicko.

Agreed. The current healthcare "system" is not a free market. But such pronouncements as "In a free market...," don't seem to address the power that Sicko harnesses. There are 46 million uninsured, so let's have universal health care. Bad idea, IMO, but simple and appealing, especially to those who don't study the matter in more depth.

I've not seen a crisp, clear free market response to the uninsured problem. One suspects that much of the funding of free market works on healthcare is coming from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which muddies the waters.

In concept, I liked Wes Clark's idea of allowing all citizens to buy the health insurance plan offered to federal employees. Perhaps that's too direct or populist. Or perhaps -- like Al Gore's carbon tax offset by Social Security tax cuts -- free marketeers are too partisan.

-Robert Capozzi

Poetic Justice

Remember when Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief excluded Ron Paul from their presidential forum? The George W. Bush and John McCain supporter probably did more to help Dr. Paul by dissing him than he could have by including him. Check out this YouTube for video confirmation.

And it gets even better. When the recent presidential fundraising totals came out, it became known that Dr. Paul has more money in the bank then McCain. McCain's also been laying off staffers. Guess who was one of the canned staffers in Iowa? If you guessed Ed Failor, you win a free online copy of the Constitution.

Brave New World Update

Nominee for the silliest legislation of the year award: a New Jersey bill restricting the sale or gift of toy guns to anyone under the age of 18. This almost makes the effort to ban "provocative cheerleading" seem reasonable.

Notes on Sicko

Just back from Atlantic City, spending a few days in the sun, surf, and casinos. While there, I got a chance to see Michael Moore’s Sicko. Say what you will, the man is a gifted propagandist. He’s now able to pull off things that others can’t.

Still, were I doing a “counter Sicko” documentary, I’d know where to start. Atlantic City. The town is filled with recent immigrants from eastern Europe and Russia. So, I’d go around and ask them, “Why have you immigrated to the US vs., say, France?”

I’m pretty confident that several of the immigrants would say, “No jobs in France. US have jobs. Good jobs. Much opportunity.” Or some such.

I could follow up: “But in France you’d get ‘free’ healthcare.”

And I’m pretty confident I’d get answers like: “Rather have job, take my chances.”

Moore used all sorts of manipulative anecdotes to make his case. Fair enough, I suppose. But the final scene, with Moore jokingly “petitioning” Congress to do his laundry, really said it all for me. In a sense, that’s what statists want: A complete nanny state, where the government ‘takes care’ of everything for the people. Me? No thanks. I can do my own laundry, thank you very much.

One series of anecdotes that Sicko does expose that is a major concern is his exposing of insurance companies. Denial of benefits, and even the twisted incentives of rewarding insurance-company staff to have high denial-of-benefits rates is chilling to me. An individual can easily to denied their contractual rights by the deep-pocketed insurance companies.

This imbalance is, for me, the Achilles Heel of free-market capitalism. Capitalism is based on property rights and contracts, yet the legal system is a stacked deck in favor of the well-heeled and large corporations.

This imbalance needs fixing…pronto. Otherwise, the Moore’s of the world can and will make the case for the State to step in and redress this obvious injustice.

-Robert Capozzi

Sheehan for Congress?

Recently, Cindy Sheehan announced that she may run for Congress against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. While I have always respected her activism against the war

In her recent statement, Sheehan sounded much more like a pissed-off independent than a left-wing Democrat:

The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese concentration camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our 'Saviors,' because I am not buying it...

Who knows what the future holds and whether Sheehan will actually take Pelosi on, but the fact is that if the antiwar movement wants to have an impact, unseating some pro-war politicians and spineless Democrats is the way to do it. Marching in the streets doesn't cut it.

Closed-source Ames straw poll needs paper ballots

Ron Paul supporters in Iowa are hoping to make a big showing in the Ames straw poll, run by the state GOP next month. But there's a problem. Des Moines Register reported the following on June 26:

Tickets cost $35 and allow holders to vote at one of dozens of electronic voting machines set up in and around Hilton. In the past, campaigns have bought up blocks of tickets and often bused their supporters to the event.

If you're not familiar with the dangers of electronic voting, my colleague Tim Lee has put it succinctly:

It is important that election officials, candidates, and members of the general public be able to observe and verify every stage of the election process. Computerized voting machines make independent verification of election procedures extremely difficult because important steps of the election process, including recording, tallying, and reporting votes, occur unseen inside a computer chip...

One of the important safeguards in the traditional election process is that it is extremely labor-intensive. Thousands of people are involved in the process of collecting and counting votes. As a result, stealing an election almost always requires a large, organized conspiracy that would be hard to keep secret. In contrast, e-voting can allow a single, well-placed individual to tamper with the software of numerous voting machines at once, potentially altering the outcome of an election . . .

Dr. Paul's supporters have shown an Hayekian ability to spontaneously organize, so the "Ron Paul paper ballots" need not be coordinated by the campaign per se. But someone out there in Iowa needs to spearhead such a project.

Hands held high

Even if hip-hop is not your thing, you will still be inspired by this great Ron Paul video. (Caution, some strong language.)

Ron Paul Wins Big on Online Libertarian Survey

One of the projects I've been working on is learning more about what makes the libertarian movement tick. Toward this end, we just ran the first of a series of online surveys at LibertarianLists.com. The raw results of the first survey are available here, and you can participate in the second of the series of surveys here. Most people can complete the second survey in 5 to 10 minutes.

Of the 1,995 people in the online libertarian community who participated in the survey, a whopping 69.6% of people chose Ron Paul as their preferred candidate, although 30 other presidential wannabes were included as possible choices. Here's how some of the other numbers break down:

Paul has 92.68% name recognition. 71.33% feel very positively about the candidate and15.19% feel somewhat positively. 2.96% are neutral. 2.01% feel somewhat negatively about Paul and only 1.20% feel very negatively about him.

Paul has the support of 53.98% of the Republicans who participated in the survey, along with 72.24% of Libertarian Party members and 70.59% of independents. He received 27.08% support from the Democrats and Greens responding to the survey.

Paul's lower numbers within the Republican ranks are mostly due to his position on the Iraq War. Of the self-described libertarians supporting other GOP presidential candidates, 60.64% feel that we should have invaded Iraq and 49.53% feel we need to continue military operations in that country.

The most important political issue to Paul supporters is our loss of civil liberties. Other hot button issues are the Iraq War, federal spending, foreign policy, elimination of federal departments and agencies, and taxes.

Additional analyses of the survey data here and here.

John Stossel and Michael Moore finding common ground?

John Stossel interviewed Sicko Michael Moore for an upcoming 20/20 episode about health care. The RealClearPolitics article was interesting, highlighting some of the things libertarians and leftists have in common and some of the real differences in thought processes between the two groups. Here's a shocker from Michael Moore:

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

Not that Moore really understands what liberty is all about, though. Otherwise he wouldn't spend so much energy fighting it.

Ron Paul and Bernanke

Next Wednesday, July 18, at 10:00 a.m. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will testify before the House Committee on Financial Services on "Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy," and take questions from Committee members, including Ron Paul.

You can watch Dr. Paul discuss economics with Chairman Bernanke at the Committee's web site.

One more reason Christians

should support Ron Paul: he is against stealing from the poor and giving to the rich via "corporate welfare" and fiat currency. According to blogger Healtheland, Pslams 22:6 shows that using state power to benefit the already rich and powerful is a sin:

"He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."

If Big Brother can make it there...

Apparently, the NYPD has been listening to Joe Lieberman as they are planing to install a sweeping network of cameras and roadblocks around lower Manhattan. Wonder if the cameras will also be used to enforce Bloomberg's smoking ban?

CATO versus Michael Moore

CATO's Michael Cannon has formed the Anti-Universal Care Club, universal care being the left's new euphemism for socialized medicine.

Speaking of Marijuana and Al Gore III

Jim Hightower has some entertaining cartoon videos on his website. The one about marijuana is great.

Defending Al Gore III

Al Gore's son arrested for marijuana. Sounds like a media feeding frenzy in the making. Good to see at least one conservative who thinks we need to reform our marijuana laws and tax it and regulate it instead.

Greenberg on Immigration

I disagree with Paul Greenberg on the immigration bill -- I think it should have died -- but I do share his distaste for the point system contained in the bill. Do we really want government bureaucrats deciding who is worthy and who is not worthy for entry into this country? I prefer an Ellis Island strategy in which we basically let everyone in as long as they don't pose a direct threat to the country as a criminal or carrier of some horrible disease.

Ultimately our country and economy are strengthened by immigration, but economic data can be twisted and are not enough to sway people anyway. Ultimately, it is the moral argument that must win the day. The past failures of the US government to overcome anti-immigration sentiment to let Jews escaping the Holacaust into the country is one specific example of the failure of our government to adequately judge the need to accept people from other lands.

The dark side of the iPhone

They may make it easier for the state to keep track of your phone and internet use. This is because the iPhones use AT&T, which has been assisting with the warrantless wiretapping programs and with the federal "data mining" programs. Six hundred dollars so Big Brother can watch me? I think I'll pass.

WWE versus the state: round II

One reason for the rush to judgment regrading the role steroids played in the Benoit murder/suicide may be that some government lawyers hope that if they can pin this tragedy on Benoit's use of steroids, they can launch an investigation into whether other World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) stars are using steroids. This may allow the federal government to avenge one of the few high-profile defeats suffered by federal prosecutors in recent times.

In the early nineties, the feds indicated WWE Chairman Vince McMahon on charges of using and distributing steroids. Aswe all know, most businessmen in Mr. McMahon's situation would have accepted the government's plea offer. Instead, Mr. McMahon told the government's lawyers where they could shove their plea offer, went to trial, and was acquitted on all charges. Wonder how many federal Nifongs are gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought of having another shot at the businessman that got away?

quote of the month

comes from an Andrew Sullivan blog entry regarding one of the many merits of Ron Paul's candidacy and Ron Paul's followers:

"Whatever the merits and demerits of Ron Paul's candidacy, it has revived interest in many conservative ideas in ways not seen in any other candidacies. We may be about to enter a liberal age. So it's good to see someone keeping the torch alight for the next generation."

Take a few minutes

and complete Steve Gordon's Libertarian Presidential Survey. Also check out Steve's blog.