Libertarians are used to wandering in the wilderness like political nomads. We know we'll be called upon from time to time to act as tour guides in order to lead the Republican leadership towards some safe small-government oasis or waterhole of individual liberty. We don't even need maps or compasses, as the routes are permanently etched within our minds. Being tough and hearty political travelers, another forty years in the wilderness doesn't scare us all that much.
We are, however, becoming increasingly annoyed with Republican leaders who have established a pattern of stiffing us on the bill for our services -- making us significantly less inclined to help out in the future.
We warned Republicans in 2004. We showed some resistance in 2006. We showed most of our cards in 2008. Months after the election, the John Cornyn/Mike Huckabee/Lindsey Graham wing of the party continues to hurl insults at us. At this point, any reasonable person might ask why libertarians would even care to lift a finger to help.
Without enough allies to fight the Democrats or even the skills to find the path to small government and individual freedom, the current Republican leadership may not be destined to forty years in the wilderness. Without libertarian assistance, they may not even make it to the next oasis.
With or without the GOP, libertarians will somehow survive. Can the GOP survive without libertarians?
The GOP's problem is twofold. First, we just concluded a period of history in which the GOP ran everything. And they did it really badly. They were corrupt and incompetent. They led us into an unnecessary and costly war; they got themselves embroiled in an endless string of scandals; and they presided over an epic economic collapse. People remember all those things very vividly and it has badly damaged the Republican brand.Jon Henke agrees:
But that's only half of the GOP's problem. The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else. Rather than admit to any mistakes or take even the slightest bit of responsibility for the state of the country, they insist on blaming everyone but themselves. [...] They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that that same man is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country. In other words, the problem is not the ideas, but the attitude. Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes. When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time. You have to acknowledge error and show some humility. You have to act civilly. You have to at least try to appear pragmatic and reasonable. But the GOP is not interested in doing any of these things. Those who are left in the party are ultra-partisan and utterly convinced of their own infallibility and moral righteousness. Until they lose that attitude and general combativeness, it won't matter what their ideas are. They'll just keep turning people off.
The Republican brand does not merely need a little tinkering. The Republican brand is not the victim of Democratic rhetoric and framing. The Republican brand is so bad because people accurately perceive the state of the Republican Party.Yes, but restoring competent governance requires a high- and middle-brow conservatism. It must reject Bush-Palin anti-intellectualism. It must stop blaming the media and offer serious, non-dismissive responses to criticism.
Rhetorical contrition and promises are insufficient. Fixing that problem requires actual, painful, reform.
AUGUSTA – Governor John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.Social conservatives will seek a people's veto, but momentum is not on their side, at least not in New England.
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
“Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word,” Governor Baldacci said. “Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.”
“While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do,” Governor Baldacci said.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."A hedge fund manager defends the rule of law.—Darth Vader
New York is by far the least free state in the Union (#50 economic, #48 personal). One of us lives in New York and can attest to the fact that few New Yorkers would be surprised by such a finding. Sadly, equally few New Yorkers seem to believe that anything can be done about the situation. New York has the highest taxes in the country. Property, selective sales, individual income, and corporate income taxes are particularly high. Spending on social services and “other” is well above national norms. Only Massachusetts has more government debt as a percentage of the economy. Government employment is higher than average. On personal freedoms, gun laws are extremely restrictive, but marijuana laws are better than average (while tobacco laws are extremely strict). Motorists are highly regulated, but several kinds of gambling are allowed statewide (not casinos, except on reservations). Home school regulations are burdensome, but asset forfeiture has been reformed. Along with Vermont, New York has the strictest health insurance community rating regulations. Mandated coverages are also very high. Eminent domain is totally unreformed. Perversely,the state strictly limits what grassroots PACs may give to candidates and parties, but not what corporations and unions may give.And the best is, of course, one of the swingiest and independent-minded states:
New Hampshire is by our count the freest state in the country. Depending on weights, however, it really shares the first, second and third slots with Colorado and South Dakota. New Hampshire does much better on economic (#2) than personal freedom (#13). Taxes and spending are among the lowest in the country, but the tax regime is highly skewed. New Hampshire has the third highest property and corporate income taxes in the United States. These should be high priorities for cutting. On the spending side, the likeliest suspect for cutting is transportation, which is higher than average once one controls for federal grants and population density (less dense states spend more on roads). Once state population is controlled for, New Hampshire is one of the most fiscally decentralized states in the country. Local governments also must raise two-thirds of what they spend with their own taxes. Gun laws are among the most liberal in the country, but the state has a weak “peaceable journey” regime (carrying a firearm in a car requires a concealed carry permit). Its alcohol regime is relatively free. Despite state control of retail distribution of wine and spirits, the effective tax rates on these products are zero, according to the Tax Foundation. Marijuana laws are middling; low-level possession could be decriminalized like Maine, while low-level cultivation could be made a misdemeanor like both Maine and Vermont. New Hampshire is the only state in the country with no seat-belt law for adults. It lacks a motorcycle helmet law but does have a bicycle helmet law and authorizes sobriety checkpoints. New Hampshire is one of three states that permit self-insurance for auto liability. Gambling is relatively controlled: Most gaming must take place under a charitable license, social gaming is prohibited, and aggravated gambling is a felony. State approval is required to open a private school. Home school laws are about average on the whole, but the standardized testing and recordkeeping requirements are more onerous than most states. Labor laws are generally market-friendly, but it is not a right-to-work state. Occupational licensing is worse than average. Both eminent domain and asset forfeiture have been thoroughly reformed. The state’s liability system is one of the best, but campaign finance regulations are quite strict. As of 2006, smoking bans allowed many exemptions, but a thoroughgoing ban has since passed (not captured by our index).It'll get same-sex marriage soon, too. Consider the move.
"Policies tend to have a lot more to do with preserving politicians, winning the news cycle and helping "favored political constituencies" than with establishing dependable, sustainable and objectively good rules. Government has the biggest Principal-Agent Problem of all."—Jon Henke
AT PRESENT there is a general consensus that government spending needs to rise in order to make up for the shortfall in demand from American consumers. A great deal of federal money also needs to be put toward rescuing the financial system. Thus, even this magazine has endorsed much of Barack Obama's expansive economic agenda. But at some point in the future the economy will stabilise, private spending will once again be counted on to spur growth, and a more restrained government should return. At that point, will the Democrats in power (assuming they're still in power) be able to turn off the tap?
Jon Henke of The Next Right suggests how we might measure the Democrats' seriousness about long-term fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction.Watch how Obama funds programs that are not successful, or that do not have clear metrics for success/failure. Recall a point that Obama made in his inaugural address.Therein lies the fear of every centrist now supporting Mr Obama. The Republicans, of course, were no better in managing the budget. But should the president fail to make a dent in the deficit by 2012, the opposition will have an issue to run on. Sensing this, Mr Henke puts his party on notice:The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ... Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.Here's my prediction: programs that Democratic groups are inclined to like will almost never end. They will be given additional funding. For those programs, the answer will almost never be "no".We can't dig our way out of this fiscal hole by "cutting waste". We certainly can't afford any significant tax cuts at this point. Proposals that are not politically viable are not "serious"; they are grandstanding for the base.
There are few things rarer than a major politician doing something that is genuinely courageous and principled, but Jim Webb's impassioned commitment to fundamental prison reform is exactly that.John Scswenkler: Leaders needed...
In this context, the unpopular stances Greenwald has in mind concern the drug war, sentencing guidelines, prison conditions, and the horrid condition of a country where blacks are sentenced to prison on drug charges at over five times the rate of whites despite not using drugs any more frequently, but it’s not hard to think of others that fit the bill: [great list]TMV: The Silent Cries of Racism...
Can someone help me out here? Where is this growing throng of people calling criticizers of President Obama the dreaded R-word: racists? Can someone point this out to me? Because actress Angie Harmon feels she must present her “I’m not a racist if I criticize President Obama” cardNRO: First-person Socialism...
I think our president needs to invest more in the use of the third-person "government," since his speeches more and more center on the narcissistic "I" and "me." Even the car-takeover speech was "I-ed" to death.Politico: Detroit plan has GOP all over the map...
President Barack Obama may or may not be able to save the U.S. auto industry, but his dramatic restricting plan is already having some effect: It’s sent the highly disciplined GOP message machine careening out of control.Marc Ambinder: What 'Hightly Disciplined GOP Message Machine'?...
This isn't a knock at Politico..er...POLITICO, but since when has the GOP benefited from a "highly disciplined ... message machine?" When Congress debated the stimulus package, the party was united, but everything pretty much fell apart after that. Come to think of it, with the exception of the stimulus unity, the GOP message machine has been off-kilter since before the 2006 elections. I keep reading stories about how "Republican strategists" are on the verge of coming up with sparkling new strategies, but they never seem to materialize. The haggling over the wisdom of putting out an alternative budget is a symptom, and not a cause, of a party that lacks a leader and lacks even the patina of common cause among its various factions.Dallas Morning News: The truth about health care 'truths'...
The high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds," we're told repeatedly by Barack Obama's administration. The president mentioned these exact words twice in recent weeks, before Congress and at the opening of his health care summit.TheNextRight: The Right's Current Transformational Moment...
It's completely false, drawing on four-year-old bankruptcy stats and a discredited paper co-written by an advocate of socialized medicine suggesting that half of bankruptcies are due to health expenses....
One of the biggest reasons for the Right's decline in the Bush era is that we had long since completed most of the items on our to-do list. Low marginal tax rates? Check. The Soviet Union gone? Check. Welfare reform? Check.
This empty cupboard of ideas had led to progressively more minimalist Republican governing agendas and campaign platforms. If John McCain proposed any big, game-changing policy shifts in the last election, I must have missed them. It's true that Obama's ideas were not new either -- but he was able to sell them as "change" because they had been not tried in toto since the Johnson Administration, and people had forgotten how badly they had crashed on the rocks their last time out. Obama's central thesis -- that government ownership and central planning can outpace returns in the private market -- is actually very, very old. His playbook is that of FDR in 1933, Attlee in 1946, and Mitterand in 1981.
Me too. But this ignores the Iraq war -- a tragic multi-trillion dollar boondoggle if there ever was one but which Republicans still support. It ignores prisoner torture and indefinite detention in non-warzones as policy. It ignores copious hostility to non-sexual civil liberties. And it ignores the egregious anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and incompetence of candidates like Bush and Palin. Plus the continued stalwart support for drug prohibition. Make some headway into fixing all these HUGE problems and then sure, I'll choose a quaint traditionalist over a Fabian spender.Which is easier for a libertarian? Trading in the black markets of banned social behaviors or not paying your taxes? Clearly the former. That’s why when it comes to the unsavory business of political team sports, I generally get behind the team that signals a greater likelihood of leaving the economy to heal itself holistically. Whatever team is more likely to stay out of my pocket and tries not to punish performance (as much) will get my vote. That’s why I continue to support “fusionism,” the coalition between conservatives and libertarians. In short, the accretion of state power in economic matters is much more serious to me than concerns about the renaissance of the moral majority. I’d rather have a President with quaint views on sexuality and drug use than a Fabian Socialist with a trillion-dollar credit card.
Obama was fantastic - worlds better than his inaugural. He laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda of any Democratic President since LBJ, and did it so smoothly that you'd think he was just selling an incremental center-left pragmatism. I think that he has an acute sense - more acute than most people in Washington, probably - of just how much running room is open in front of him at the moment, and he intends to make the absolute most of it. Burkean temperament or no, this was not a Burkean speech by any stretch: It was the speech of a man seeking to turn a moment of crisis into a domestic-policy revolution, and oozing confidence from every pore along the way. Now all he has to do is find a way to pay for it ...
And Jindal - yeah, he was just as lousy as everybody's saying. As far as themes and messaging went, he basically chose option A on Ambinder's list - government isn't the solution; pork is the problem; etc. - and embedded it in a weak, sing-song delivery that I suspect left even the people who respond favorably to that message cold. Sure, responding to a Presidential speech is almost always a thankless, hopeless job - but shouldn't someone as smart as Jindal have recognized that, and either turned the opportunity down flat, or found a way to sound like something other than a kindergarten teacher delivering familiar GOP talking points? In the event, his speech was the capstone on a lousy night for conservatism: If that's the best the Right has to offer as a rebuttal to Obama, American liberalism is going to be running untouched down the field for years to come.
I hate to break this news to my fellow conservatives; you can use any kind of mathematical hocus pocus you wish but there just aren’t enough of us to only allow “true conservatives” a place at the table. The absence of conservatives like David Frum, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, and others who probably agree with 90% of conservative positions on the issues but have been driven from the movement for their apostasy—real or imagined—is as incomprehensible as it is depressing.
It is very clear what President Obama is trying to do with Judd Gregg: get a filibuster proof majority not through an election but through the President's virtually uncontested power of appointment. And if not with a Democrat, get it de facto through a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican hand-picked by the Democratic Governor. This is not about bipartisanship, but an audacious, and I would say impressive, game of political hardball.And that little apparently doesn't include the fact that Lincoln Chafee's voting record is on the right side of history.
[...]
We are going down the Lincoln Chafee route in New Hampshire by agreeing to any appointment of a Republican by a Democrat, instead of insisting on Republican participation in the process. If so, this shows we have learned very little as a party these last 3 years.
Political Browser | washington
