Ba-Bye, Rudy and Fred

There you stood on the edge of your feather, Expecting to fly.

-Neil Young

The recent drop outs on the R side of the ledger got me thinking about Neil Young's song, "Expecting to Fly." As one who admires the seeming sloth of Calvin Coolidge over the micromanaging ways of Jimmy Carter, it pains me to say: Even if you are lazy, it pays to look like you're not. Think of the George Costanza character on Seinfeld, feigning overwork and stress whenever a colleague or superior was in earshot. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Rudy Giuliani – once angling to be the nation's first Italo-American president (HT to fellow pizanne Nick Gillespie) – has puzzled me for over a year. How could he possibly appeal to the social conservatives? He seemed to pull it off, for a while, making them forget their prudish tendencies for an even bigger fear: 9/11, or more properly, a repeat of 9/11. Still, I was shocked that he held the #1 spot in national polls for as long as he did.

But then came the actual primaries and caucuses. Rudy was a no-show. Did he not learn of the import of the Big Mo from Bush the Elder? To be a leader, you've got to look like one, act like one, win the early skirmishes, or at least artfully play the expectations game. Giuliani did none of this that I can detect.

Fred Thompson seemed relatively benign to me personally, compared with the rest of the "top tier" candidates. He all but yawned in the debates. It's one thing to strike a stately, dignified, above-the-fray pose when running for prez, another to seem numb and uninterested. It even started to appear that his young, comely wife had pushed him into running.

Seems like we Americans don't want hen-pecked, lazy dudes in the Oval Office (although I can think of far more inappropriate qualities). But the lesson learned is: If you want to fly Air Force One, you've got to at least flap your wings.

-RC

"Both our laws and our highest ideals"

Bush says we should respect both in regards to our immigration policy.

It should be so with ALL our policies.

/KDR

Hillary the Robot (at SOTU)

She's clapping, but she isn't smiling. Why is she clapping?

/KDR

Work for a Corporation, Democrats Say

I'm watching the State of the Union and I'm appalled to see that Democrats, including Obama, are not clapping at Bush's call to reform tax law so that individuals can get their own health insurance and take it with them. In other words, keep working for the paternalistic corporations, don't be your own boss.

Very un-free-liberal.

/KDR

Camelot Gathers 'Round

It's days like today that remind me I've missed out on too much of the (relatively) recent history which is still shaping our politics (no matter how "old" I feel compared to my freshmen students . . . ). Barack Obama is the next JFK, everybody knows, and today the Kennedy Family gathered to give him one massive endorsement party.

Not to make fun of Obama, but it's like Arthur has returned to Camelot. Makes even a late-comer like me feel a tad nostalgic and excited (and I don't even like Ted Kennedy!).

Just shows you the power of myth even in our "modern" age, I guess.

The Lies Have It

Someone finally took the time to tabulate all the lies foisted upon the American people in the run-up to the Iraq War. It looks like the answer is 935. That is a lot of lying especially when you consider that just one lie could get a President impeached.

Petraeus '12?

OK, punditry is officially and completely off the tracks. The yammering has reached a fevered pitch revolving around this year's presidential scrum. (We here at TFL don't "yammer," btw. We soberly and insightfully comment on the state of affairs-- ahem -- just to be clear .)

I reached this conclusion when I read this headline:

Petraeus '12

I really couldn't read all of this piece, mostly because the whole thing is so preposterous. Could happen, but the layers of speculation are so deep, betting on Petraeus in 2012 is like betting on what teams will be in the Super Bowl in 2012. It assumes, for instance, that the Ds win the White House in 08, and that seems like a reasonable guess. But it also assumes that by 2012, the Iraq quagmire will have been exited in ways that the US doesn't look Adam Sandler at his goofiest or Genghis Khan at his bloodiest. That would mean we're out, the Iraqis have a functioning government and there's relative peace in the streets.

It assumes any number of conditions come to the fore. The premise seems to be that Petraeus would follow the Eisenhower Model. Big problem: Ike was a war hero in a world war. Iraq's not WWII, and, Lord willing, it doesn't become WWIII.

It's one thing to say, Gee, Patraeus may be a man on the rise in the public consciousness. But a President Petraeus? I like the alliteration, and maybe it could happen, but this notion just seems profoundly silly to me. Perhaps the drama of Election 08 has released silly gas from the Earth's core.

-RC

Tectonic Ch Ch Ch Changes

A comment on Fred Foldvary’s column here “Tectonic change is what we need.”

Perhaps we should take some perspective from the great philosopher David Bowie in arguably his greatest work, “Changes.” He suggests we first “turn and face the strain.”

Sound counsel. To make change, we must do it one day at a time. Change necessarily means identifying what does not work, finding solutions to undo what does not work, and institute new models that do work.

Don’t get me wrong, tectonic change along the lines that Foldvary suggests would be grand. There is some danger in overreaching, as the points advocated sound distant and unachievable in the short or even intermediate term.

Bowie metaphorically offers us a different attitude. We can’t, he notes, “trace time.” A challenging epistemological notion, that, but time can’t be traced because time happens moment by moment.

So, yes, we can easily dismiss the presidential political pabulum of being for “change,” or pronouncements like “I am the change agent.” Hollow, tinny stuff, that. But for there to be tectonic change, there needs to be consensus and leadership. Leaders with few followers are inconsequential. Consensus without leadership is aimless, and therefore inconsequential, too.

And, so, we drift. Bowie tells us that’s OK, too. “Pretty soon you're gonna get a little older.”

-RC

Obama -- Beacon of Hope?

Could a transpartisan Barack Obama sell the world on America, capitalism, and liberalism (versus socialism)?

French political scientist Dominique Moisi seems to think the Democrat will give pro-American Europeans some arguments to “sell” the United States among anti-Americans. “Why is Obama so different,” he asks in a recent syndicated essay, “from the other presidential candidates? After all, in foreign policy matters, the next president’s room to maneuver will be very small. He (or she) will have to stay in Iraq, engage in the Israel-Palestine conflict on the side of Israel, confront a tougher Russia, deal with an ever more ambitious China, and face the challenge of global warming. If Obama can make a difference, it is not because of his policy choices, but because of what he is. The very moment he appears on the world’s television screens, victorious and smiling, America’s image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution.”

This is from Alvaro Vargas Llosa's piece at the Independent Institute. (Hat tip: Michael Strong)

Hornberger Takes on the Wall Street Journal

I like his blog which can be found here. He is responding to this piece which took Ron Paul to task for being right on Iraq and just about every other foreign policy misadventure this nation has undertaken.

Undo the Obstacles to the Manifestation of Comparative Advantage

TFL’s newfound friend and commenter ACC appears to be quite knowledgeable about the intricacies of the Ex-Im Bank. I am in this sense at a disadvantage. ACC does, however, give us an opportunity to go back to square one on important concepts.

Today, let’s go back to “comparative advantage.” ACC says:

This cuts to the issue of whether or not one believes that promoting exports at all is a "good" thing. If you believe at all in the theory of comparative advantage, you probably would think that it is.

My take: the notion of comparative advantage is an observation, not a call to arms. When markets, goods and services flow freely and peacefully, it liberates people to do what they do best. It also tends to aggregate in nation states. The US, for example, does technology more effectively than Switzerland. The Swiss do chocolate and watches effectively.

These advantages can and, most of the time, do evolve and arise without government intervention. The theory of comparative advantage says absolutely nothing about “promoting” anything. Some promotion does happen, to be sure. Whether such promotion works to increase the prosperity of the citizenry – who can say? What is clear is that nations that do less promotion and less intervention are generally substantially more prosperous than those nations that do more, over time.

ACC also asserts:

Nor are resources just magically being shifted out of production of other goods a la Soviet arms factories eschewing consumer durables – especially in a case like Boeing -- its natural market is going to be made up of international actors by default.

This depends on what you mean by “magic.” People and corporations react to subsidies and penalties, do they not? Subsidize X, and we almost always get more X. Penalize (tax or regulate) Y, and we almost always get less Y. Call it “reinsurance” if you must, but the Ex-Im Bank is in the subsidy business. While I’m pleased to see that the Ex-Im Bank is not a drain on taxpayers, I’d remind you that there are other “facilitating” government and quasi-government entities in the mortgage and pension liability areas that appear to be ticking time bombs for taxpayers.

That’s why I advocate undoing the obstacles to the manifestation of comparative advantage. It’s a neutral, peaceful approach, not the government-as-mad-scientist, testing and tinkering with a market of people that just wants to do its thing. While he was no saint, Ronald Reagan put this point well: “Get the government off our backs.” Not just off Boeing’s back. Not just off industry’s back. Off your back and my back.

Look at it this way: If government doesn't promote exports (or production of any kind), do you honestly believe that there would be no exports or production? If yes, I humbly, respectfully, but strongly disagee.

-RC

The Mercantilist Impulse

You may also note that virtually every other major economy has their own export credit agency.

-ACC, TFL Commenter

But, Mom, everyone else is doing it.

Everyone might want to go jump off a bridge, that doesn’t mean you should, too.

A spirited, unexpected discussion here on TFL about the Ex-Im Bank. Highly recommended. I hadn’t realized that the Ex-Im Bank has been self-financing in recent years, so thank you for that fact. It has fallen on my list of most absurd government programs, but I still find it absurd.

We’ve established that industry is sometimes inefficient, and probably that government is more inefficient. The big difference, of course, is that government imposes its will on citizens, while industry must compete to attract customers. That’s a built-in advantage for industry in my book. Over time, I have a lot more confidence that Boeing can and will find customers for its products. Government intervention may seem on the surface to help make the markets – that is, the people – more efficient, but that all depends on which fact set one looks at. For example, the US corporate tax rate is intolerably high. It’s high relative to the rest of the industrialized world, even. If we want to “help” Boeing, we should start by lowering their tax rate. That’s an undue burden that certainly is putting US industry at a competitive disadvantage.

Let's see. They finance US exports that commercial banks can't finance to help US exporters compete and keep Americans working... their default rate is around 2%, AND they've returned $4 billion to the Treasury during the past decade or so. That's $4 billion MORE than the taxpayer paid to operate Eximbank.

-Tom Jeff, TFL commenter

I’d suggest reading up on F.A. Hayek’s concept of malinvestment here, Tom. In isolation, again, your case is strong. But consider the secondary and tertiary effects of government intervention, which is part of Hayek’s point. Favoring exports by policy means that industry shifts resources away from what the market wants. It’s impossible to quantify, as there are 300 million data points on any given day, signaling the market what their demands are. Suppliers react to those demands, unless government steps in. It may look good for the Treasury, but it doesn’t look good for the national economy, which expresses its preferences privately and peacefully every second of every day.

-RC

Asymmetrical Information

Sometimes, we get some very thoughtful comments. Here's one by "a concerned citizen" (ACC).

ACC opined on my blog Exploding Myths. Rather offhandedly, I wondered out loud why the US has an EX-IM Bank. ACC shared the short version. This ACCism caught my eye:

Now, if you believe that all markets are perfectly efficient and that the private sector is infallible in its judgment ..., this would be a bad thing. However, in reality, markets are not perfectly efficient. Information is asymmetrical.

Obviously, markets are not perfectly efficient. Does anyone believe that? Of course information is asymmetrical.

This begs the question: Does ACC believe that the government is more efficient than the market? Does government have better, more reliable information than the market? Can the government assess that information better than the market?

Hmm, let's see. WMD in Iraq. Synfuels. Profoundly large and unpredicted unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. Again, one needs hours to cite the list of government failure in the information game.

And while it may be sorta OK that the Ex-Im Bank contributes to the Treasury on one level, has American prosperity increased because of Ex-Im Bank? Hard to say. In fact, arrogant to say. Perhaps mitigating political risk to export is a bad idea. Maybe the market -- that is, the people -- have signaled the market that those products should not be produced, or perhaps they should be sold domestically.

Square one is generally a good place to start in any inquiry.

-RC

Endorsements

We at TFL are sometimes asked who we support in the presidential campaign. The answer is: No one. Making an endorsement in a partisan race is inappropriate, given our charter. We do comment on developments in the race that we believe will be of interest to our readers. And sometimes our writers will indicate their personal preferences.

TFL is staking out a new way to look at politics. Not non-partisan, TRANS-partisan. We constantly search for sound ideas that we believe increase liberty and community in the world, regardless of which camp the idea sprung from. We connect the dots in sometimes unconventional ways as well. We encourage people to think outside the box.

In fact, there is no box.

-RC

Giving Credit Where It Is Due

Here is a good column by Pat Buchanan asking why we are stretching the credit of the American people to pay for the defense of other nations. (Hat tip: Norm Singleton)

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.

He relates our foreign adventurism to our fairy tale monetary policy, where we can use the money supply to inflate our way out of debt.

I have no problem with the US trade imbalance or that our banks sell debt and equity to further their business per se. Such is free trade.

But, we do have a problem when our government engages in such fiscal extravagance that it is borne heavily by the economy such it that drives us into inefficient debt.

Pat Buchanan also rightly gives Ron Paul credit for being the only candidate to talk about these issues. Indeed Ron Paul has been the only candidate who seems to care about the details of how foreign policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy interact. The debates this year would have been much poorer without his participation.

I think it is really a shame that the voice Ron Paul has brought to these matters has been so tainted by the recent newsletter scandal. But, he deserves credit where credit is due.

/KDR

Exploding Myths

Warren Buffet, the second-richest-man in America, seems to think he’s under taxed. I for one don’t see how he can reach this conclusion, no matter how you slice it. Michael Bindner suggests here that the reason is “[h]igher income taxpayers are currently paying at a lower rate than the average American.”

Some people seem to believe that, but then people believe a lot of things that are simply not true. The most comprehensive view I’ve seen is here and I’ve previously blogged on this here.

Tax equity is a consideration, I’ll grant, but the primary issue is that taxing and spending are out of control. We’re all – rich and poor – paying way too much for this stinking war, bridges to nowhere, the Ex-Im Bank (what exactly do they do?), and give me many hours to itemize just the absurdities alone.

I suggest we keep our eyes on the prize. It’s time to unburden the people from out-of-touch elites and their cavalcade of pet projects. Along the way, we can deliberate over the wisdom of taxing dividends (a bad idea, in my book). But let’s not give Nero a pass. He’s fiddling. Put down the violin, Nero, and put the fire out.

-RC

Running and Hiding

Perhaps there's a benign explanation for this. One strains the brain, however, and cannot come up with one.

"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel 'libertarians' for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is 'destroying your movement,' as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards."

Whole “thing” here. Here's a sample:

Lew doesn't use his website to promote queer marriage, gay this and gay that, Rosa Parks, MLK, or any other "hero" of the politically-correct, libertarian Kochtopus.

and

Let's define what is really meant by "homophobe." This word has always left me bewildered because it is essentially a 'tag" for those people who do not actively support queer sex; queer marriage; and special, collective rights.

For background on this “thing,” check here, here, and here. The author of this “thing” is a putative supporter of the “love revolution.” Where is the love?

It strikes me as lacking, utterly so. So much so that this "scoundrel" – that would be yours truly -- has been listed as a “war criminal.”

I ask again, where is the love?

HT Andrew Taylor.

-RC

The OTHER Open Letter

Daryl Sawyer blogs he wants more information on the matter of "who ghostwrote those hateful words in Ron Paul's name." In these days of Internet dirty tricks, anything's possible. But my research so far indicates that this latest open letter is authentic, and sheds a LOT more light on the situation:

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - January 12, 2008

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

IMO, the answers coming from the Paul campaign are insufficient on many levels. Some feel the explanation is sufficient, and chide those who don't agree. I'm going to be so bold as to say that if you don't see that this matter has not been put to rest, you are simply not paying attention. The game of American politics is not played that way.

Welcome to the Big Leagues.

-RC

Lew Rockwell?

As a regular reader of lewrockwell.com (and occasional reader of mises.org), I find the allegation that Lew was, himself, behind some of the racist, homophobic screeds found in some of Dr. Paul's past newsletters disturbing, to say the least. Thus far, however, all I've seen here at TFL is vague suggestions about murmurings on message boards regarding Lew's authorship. Would anybody here like to put forth the evidence behind this accusation? If it can't be done, perhaps we should hold back on joining the anti-Rockwell train. Slander—if it is slander—does not help the freedom movement, regardless of whom it is aimed at.

Racist Words vs. Racist Deeds

So you wish to improve racial equality and you have two candidates to choose from. Which of these do you choose?

Candidate A uses politically correct language, supports current civil rights laws, and otherwise supports the status quo.

Candidate B has a history of hanging out with old-time racist conservatives, questions civil rights laws, and wants to end the War on Drugs.

Objectively speaking, Candidate B is better, by an overwhelming margin. Jail time really stinks up a resume, far beyond what civil rights laws or affirmative action can repair. And I hear jail time is rather unpleasant. How many racial slurs does it take to equal one man-year in jail in terms of unpleasantness? My estimate would be on the order of many thousands at least.

So, theoretically Ron Paul is the least racist candidate running for president this year. But I cannot fault anyone who begs to differ. Those old newsletters written in Ron Paul’s name were truly vile.

True, deeds are more important than words. If Ron Paul were to win the presidency and pardon non-violent drug offenders as promised, those deeds would far outweigh the ugly words.

But the words happened while the deeds are in a future, a rather unlikely future given the polling numbers and the current scandal. My own enthusiasm for the Ron Paul Revolution has thus plummeted. I’ve removed my bumper sticker and turned over control of my local Ron Paul meetup.

And I will continue to disassociate with Paul’s campaign unless the campaign makes it extremely clear that the Ron Paul Revolution is not some covert racist operation. The tepid rationalizations to date don’t hack it. The campaign needs to:

1. Donate the Stormfront money to a Jewish charity.
2. Out and vilify – or extract a public apology from – the actual author of the offensive editorials.
3. Go on the offensive on the race issue. Spend some big bucks on ads pointing out the horrible injustices perpetrated against black communities today by the drug warriors. Promise pardons, restorations of voting rights, in your ads.

The third item will cost some social conservative votes. But such cost would constitute sufficient restitution for prior sponsorship of racists. And it would allow me and others like me to once again proudly say “I am a Ron Paul supporter.”

Is the Horse Dead?

In response to Radley Balko's post today at reason about being increasingly ashamed of having defended Ron Paul in the past, one commenter suggested the issue of the racist newsletters had passed already:

Sheesh...the horse is dead already.

Should we all just "Move On"?

Well, I get emails all day long from friends (and many people I've never met) trumpeting Ron Paul's successes and exhorting me to do something for Ron Paul. Indeed, in October, Walter Block even suggested that supporting Ron Paul is the litmus test of whether a person is a libertarian:

Ron is a one-man band of publicity for liberty. I am appalled that (your Institute) takes the stance on him that it does. In my view, Ron is a sort of litmus test for libertarianism.

But, if Ron Paul will be associated with hate-mongering, does a lover of liberty want to pass this test?
As Balko writes:

Perhaps it's too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds...But if he can't, it's also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him.

The way Ron Paul can show that he does not support bigotry is to stop covering for those who wrote the newsletter. Ron Paul supporters who either brush over this matter or aid in the stonewalling are not convincing us to just drop it and jump back on the bandwagon.

/KDR

Mob Mentality in the Ron Paul Revolution?

One wonders about the reading skills of some the commenters at our website. Repeatedly, it has been asserted that I want to hurt Ron Paul.

Your attempts to slander Dr. Paul are sophmoric at best, and abhorrent at worst.

Any serious review of our site would lead to conclusion that The Free Liberal has been supportive of Dr. Paul over the years. Remember, I defended Ron Paul when the racist articles were thrust into the spotlight.

Tom Knapp has a very amusing satire of Ron Paul supporters' willingness to shout "smear" at anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Ron Paul's immaculate conception.

While I consider Ron Paul to be an honorable man, with a great record of standing up for liberty in the Congress where he often must rise alone against the steamroller of statism, there are many things about the Ron Paul movement which we could do without: including the racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theorizing, and threatening violence against Ron Paul critics such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

This behavior smacks of partisan hackery, and people interested in liberty should not be partisan hacks. They should not engage in a mob mentality. They should think for themselves and recognize that teamism and mass hatred are the tools used to undermine liberty and respect for others.

To paraphrase the wisdom of JRR Tolkien, we cannot use the tools of the "enemy" without becoming that which we abhor.

/KDR

Despicable Behavior

This video of a mob of Ron Paul supporters chasing Sean Hannity down the street is horrendous. Who are these people? Are they really advocates of peace and liberty?

Per my previous post on hatred in the libertarian movement, and my co-signed letter to the apparent writer of the racist newsletter to which Ron Paul's name was attached, this video constitutes further proof that there is a subset of "libertarians" who don't respect other people and are fueled by a boiling hatred.

To those people who took part in chasing Mr. Hannity down the street, "Shame on you."

Anyone who can name these individuals should post their names online so that other libertarians can shun them from the movement.

Stepping Back from Jefferson

In my recent front page article I dared to suggest that President Lincoln was not as great as many make him out to be. While his actions did lead to partial liberation of Negro slaves, the cost in lives, including innocent lives, was huge. This doesn't mean I side with the Civil War Revisionists who villify Lincoln, however.

Conversely, similar reasoning applies to Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson deserves praise for his stances on small government, his case for hero status is sullied by the fact that he held onto his slaves. As James W. Loewen points out in Lies my Teacher Told Me, Jefferson's continued slaving also affected his public policies as president.

It is long past time for advocates of freedom to distance themselves from Thomas Jefferson and similar figures. Overall, Jefferson was no more libertarian than Hillary Clinton. Privatized tyranny can be as bad or worse than tyranny by a central government.

Haters As Cowards

Bridging on Kevin Rollins blog, Ron Paul Isn't a Racist, I agree 100%. I especially agree that the ghostwriter(s) should reveal themselves.

Were I a betting man, an act of contrition seems unlikely. Racists and homophobes are, by definition, cowards. They fear what they don’t know. Deep down, their own self-loathing is projected out onto the world. These particularly sick individuals use blacks and gays as scapegoats. They sometimes dress up their hatred in “scientific” and “pithy intellectual” language, but at root they are frightened children – dangerous ones at that.

Perhaps the real reason why Klansmen hide under sheets isn’t for anonymity. Could it be that can’t bear to look in the mirror?

Rumors have started to swirl in cyberspace as to who the ghostwriter really is. Is the movement more important than his precious reputation?

A coward – slinking into dark corners of denial – predictably would choose “reputation” over the greater good. A cozy life in the shadows, taking potshots at anyone who disagrees with his twisted worldview, is more important to the coward than moving the nation toward liberty.

Of course, confession actually is good for the soul. And the coward might be surprised that others are willing to forgive wrong-minded thinking. Of course, being in denial, the coward believes he is innocent; this is all a conspiracy, a fabrication, a smear.

As we all learned from The Wizard of Oz, even the cowardly lion can choose to be brave for once in his life.

-RC

Ron Paul Isn't a Racist

A political hit piece appearing in The New Republic today delves back into Ron Paul's past to re-reveal a stain on his record: racist diatribes published in newsletters which bore the good doctor's name.

Personally knowing Ron Paul and his staff, I can report that never have I had an inkling that this was a group of people with ties to any kind of racist or hate-filled organization. The Free Liberal would not run his columns if we believed that he was an advocate of hatred.

In fact, I have a quote pinned to my home office wall, from one of Ron Paul's speeches before Congress "Liberty is where the minority is protected."

The truth it seems, is that Dr. Paul made a very bad judgment call about whom he did business with. The person(s) who are truly responsible should step forward and apologize to Dr. Paul.

The campaign should continue to make clear that it does not buy into the craziness of the 9/11 Truthers or the Stormfront wackos. David Duke can support Paul all he wants, but that doesn't mean our favorite Texas Congressman supports David Duke.

In general, the libertarian movement doesn't need the support of any kind of hate-mongers. And I mean people who hate for any cause, not just for race or ethnicity. Let's toss 'em out.

Kevin D. Rollins
Publisher, The Free Liberal

Thoughts on New Hampshire

It has been quite an interesting week politically. Some of things I'm most interested in:

Barack Obama as a transpartisan candidate?

Obama has been proclaimed "post-partisan" which is much closer to "transpartisan" than "bipartisan." Transpartisanship is about keeping one's values but addressing the values of others, whereas bipartisanship is about compromise. A tranpartisan president could be very good. My emotional read on his personality is that he is open to talk, which makes me much more hopeful about his candidacy than Edwards or Clinton both of whom seem to have very hardened views about the need for big government to fix America's woes. Edwards presents class warfare as the central element (very Marxist!) and Clinton seems to be campaigning to be "chief bureaucrat."

I also think it would be very good for America to elect a black president, if only to put the final nail in the coffin of American racism. The fact that Obama hasn't played the race card makes this statement even stronger.

Ron Paul is Stayin' Alive?

Ron Paul can go three ways: up, down, or plod along.

If Ron Paul increases his vote share (more than 10 percent) he will appear to be on the rise and can use that to fuel bigger numbers in the next contest. It will be hard for the media to ignore him if he gets above 15 percent. If he gets less than 10 percent, he is on his way into irrelevance (or a spoiler third party candidacy). New Hampshire should be a strong state for him, being as libertarian as it is, but it is possible that many people still haven't heard about him, or don't take him seriously yet. Most likely seems that Ron Paul will get his 10 percent and continue plodding along. To break from this, he needs to go after the other candidates (as a group) for continuing to advocate failed policies. A focus on more ordinary language and less obscure comments about Austrian Economics would help him better sell liberty.

/KDR

Fox News, Ron Paul and Conservatives

Jacob Hornberger does a very effective job of explaining where modern conservatives went wrong in this piece. While I didn't have to wait for Fox to exclude Ron Paul from its "debate" in order to boycott that particular station, the greater issue is that conservatives and by extension the Republican Party really is at a loss for meaning.

After all, Democrats, while there is dissent, are basically trying to figure out how far and how fast they want to go with their agenda. Republicans, on the other hand, are genuinely divided. Can you think up three more different characters than Huckabee, and Paul?

George Bush once claimed to be "A uniter, not a divider." Not only has that turned out not to be the case nationally and internationally, but his legacy to the Republican Party may well be that he has effectively splintered the Party, rendering it fit for status in the minority for the forseeable future.

“Original Intent”: Then, Now and Forever

Two conversations that freedomistas continue to have are about the “original intent” of the Constitution and the intent of the Union during the Civil War. These issues are intertwined in interesting ways.

Let’s stipulate that we really can’t know what the “original intent” of the Framers was. Sometimes, I myself am conflicted in my intent, how about you? Occasionally, I’m quite clear on my intentions, but, frankly, that’s a rare thing. I suspect that’s the human condition, and was the human condition in the 18th century, too.

If true, it follows that any one Framer’s intent back then was probably somewhat muddled. Aggregate those muddles, and we get a pool of muddledness. We can read the text of the Constitution, transcripts of the proceedings, written documents from the times commenting on the draft, etc. But, still, we should be humble enough to recognize that there was no such thing as an “original intent.”

Which leads to the intentions of the Union in 1860: What was it? It may be no surprise that it was just as muddled in the 19th century as it was in the 18th. This, of course, includes Abraham Lincoln, whom some deify and others demonize. It’s one thing to explode myths about Lincoln, but another to suggest that the Confederacy’s secession was in effect authorized by the Constitution’s (non-existent) original intent. A case can be made, surely, but overstating the case tends to undermine the validity of the assertion.

The revisionists go further: The Civil War wasn’t about slavery, or that slavery was one of several disputes. Yes, the record shows that there were other bones of contention. Yet, one need only read the Republican Party’s platforms of 1860 and 1864 that the party, at least, was deeply concerned about the continued institution of slavery. It appears that they viewed the secession of the Confederate states to be a “Rebellion.”

In 1860, they said:

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States. 9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

In 1864, they said:

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

There are a number of ways to look at any issue. We should take great care when asserting that we know the one truth.

-RC

Challengers from the Mainstream

In my last blog, I may have coined the term "challengers from the mainstream." (I say "may" because nothing's new under the sun.)

Most real politics is quibbling around the center. Like it or not, that's a fact. I'd go further and say that most citizens are more or less comfortable with that. Why? As social beings, humans tend to align with the notion that there's safety in numbers.

Sure, sure, a lot of folks like to "assert their indiividuality," but even that is huddled close to the center. The wildest it gets is voting for Perot and driving a Scion for, say, 95% of the population.

It's this paradox that successful presidential politicians attempt to harness. Be of the center, yet be a change agent. Usually the "change" is vague and not really much of a change. Barack Obama seems to be the newest and best exponent of this strategy. It seems to be working for him. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Obama has already won. He' a national figure we'll be seeing on Meet the Press for perhaps decades.

We are seeing the Insurgent Paradigm in this election cycle. Pat Buchanan used it in previous runs, and it met with modest success. This go round, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are using it. Mathematically, it's more challenging to pull together enough support to challenge the mainstream at its root. Implicitly, the Insurgent asks the mainstream to wake up, uproot and move.

Whether the mainstream wants to wake up is an open question. And whether they want to be uprooted -- even before their morning cup of joe -- is an even bigger question.

And, yet, it can happen, as it did in 1776.

-RC

Love and Hate, Iowa Style

One take – my snap take – on the Iowa caucus results:

We Americans have a love/hate relationship with “winners.” Winners in America are folks like Britney Spears, folks we like to exalt, then smack down like yesterday’s news. Or folks like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

Romney looks and acts like a president, IMO. Too much like one, apparently, according to Iowans. Clinton’s already been “co-president,” so she knows what to say and how to say it . . . perhaps all too well. Make your campaign’s sub-text “I am inevitable,” and you’re sure to hackle the ire of Iowans, and Americans generally. Sure, this is a stylistic analysis, but, then, perception in politics is reality.

Both lost the Iowa caucuses after having once had a significant lead in both Romney’s and Clinton’s case.

Americans also like “outsiders,” but don’t be too “outside.” This may be the challenge for TFL columnist and 10-term Texas congressman Ron Paul. While NH is probably the better test for Paul’s anti-war, limited government message, coming in a close fifth in Iowa may show that being too outside is a disadvantage in American politics, at least as this particular game is played.

This may be why folks like Huckabee, McCain, Obama and Edwards positioned themselves as “challengers from the mainstream.” It tends to work in presidential politics, especially in the Iowa caucuses. It may be philosophically unsatisfying, but politics is not philosophy. It’s less than that, much less, in my estimation.

-RC

[Blank] Need Not Apply

Our discussion of undocumented immigration on TFL's Free For All has stoked all sorts of comments, much of it impassioned and well stated. I recommend the dialog to all our readers.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Arguably even Native Americans (or American Indians, if you prefer that label) probably came to North America from Asia. Each wave of immigration has sparked sometimes hateful, hyperbolic rhetoric from those already in the US. Thankfully, the US is still the land of opportunity, hence a magnet for those residing in less free places.

It's also the case the our nation's abundance includes social programs designed to aid the less fortunate, and that -- to a lesser extent -- is a magnet for some immigrants.

And it's also the case that there are laws and regulations governing the appropriate process to immigrate to the US. 10 to 15 million people have disregarded those laws, and are residing in the US.

Is that a problem? Yes. Should undocumented immigration be checked in some form? Yes. Are all undocumented immigrants "criminals" like murderers and thieves? No. Do those who want to check illegal immigration sometimes sound xenophobic? Yes.

I suggest this as the parameters for civil discussion of this subject.

-RC

Illegal Immigration and Moral Turpitude

A common technique among law and order types is to question the moral character of criminals by pointing out that they have committed crimes. It is often used in relation to drug laws, where the drug warriors use the fact that a person has broken a law (say by smoking marijuana) to prove that the law is justified, and then urge people not to use the drug based on the negative effects (which in the case of marijuana are almost totally the result of the law). It is also heavily used by illegal immigration hawks. A good example of this is a comment by Anonymous to this recent posting by Paul Gessing.

Anonymous says:

A number of bleeding heart types and illegal aliens advocates try to minimize the fact the even though illegal aliens are here illegally, there really is no crime involved. Here are some facts below so you can decide:

(1) Violating the immigration law is a CRIME
(2) Forging documents is a FELONY CRIME
(3) Passing forged documents is a FELONY CRIME
(4) Stealing ID is a FELONY CRIME
(5) Using stolen ID is a FELONY CRIME
(6) Re-entering the country after being deported is a FELONY CRIME

Do we say a man is evil because he wishes to do honest work and feed his family? Les Miserable is the tale of a man who is relentlessly pursued for stealing a loaf of bread. People generally sympathize with Jean Valjean's plight and recognize his essential decency despite his earlier crime. We should have some sympathy for those who look to America as their beacon of hope. Taking illegal immigration by itself, we can come to no conclusion about whether a person is good or bad simply because he did this.

Illegal immigration (just by itself) is a completely separate kind of crime than murder, rape, and fraud, each of which has a definable individual victim or set of victims. Who is hurt by illegal immigration? What kind of crime is this? It seems somewhat akin to dope smoking -- there is no tangible victim, only those people who are offended by the abstract concept. The harm is either associated with the illegality of the act (border county criminality, death during human smuggling, slave trafficking, etc.) or it is an aggregate effect (political change towards socialism, social service budget strains).

Perhaps not every man is evil in illegally crossing the border, but there are those who flagrantly disrespect the law, or those who want to suck up social services and put their families on the dole. Perhaps we believe that illegal immigration is a proxy for other bad behavior. If a person is willing to violate one law, perhaps they are willing to violate others. That may well be the case, statistically. Legal immigrants are crowded out (sent to the back of the line?) because illegals have taken a shortcut around the process. These could be true, but they call for a better process, like a guest worker program. And simply because such bad behavior may be associated with illegal immigration, it does not condemn each and every illegal immigrant.

/KDR

Immigration and Polls

With all of the comments posted in response to my posting about Ron Paul's anti-immigration ads, I figured that some hard data on what Americans actually think on the immigration issue is in order. Thanks to the Krieble Foundation, there is now some hard data showing that Americans are not really as anti-immigrant as is said and they actually support a guest worker program.

Hopefully, this neo-nativist wave will soon pass and Americans -- and candidates for office -- will again view immigration as the positive that it is. That's a New Year's resolution I'd like to see.

Welcome to 08

Wasn't it just yesterday that we were worried that all the world's computers would shut down at the turn of the millenium?

Guess not. I guess that was eight years ago.

Now is now, and now we seem to be in the midst of selecting a new Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Why anyone would want the job of president astounds me. Power may be intoxicating, but there is a serious price: No privacy. Profound pressure. Constant hassle.

Who knows what will happen over the next six weeks or so. The TV cameras have staked out each nook and cranny of this sausage factory we call the presidential election cycle, and at this point I say "Too much information."

Yet, we watch, like we rubberneck at the car crash on the highway. Don't deny it: You do look!

So, I wish you much pleasure this year. Just make sure you've thoroughly fried that sausage, knowing what's really in it.

-RC