Tag Archives: #Libertarian Party

Posted on by

Conservatives today vs conservatives during the Bush Administration.

On The Pirate’s Cove, the commenter currently styling himself Elwood P Dowd wrote:

We were responding to Kye who had typed: And I’d love to hear the names of conservatives who wanted war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Republicans, many, many Democommies but no conservatives.

The invasion of Iraq was a Republican project. If Republicans wish to argue that there are no conservatives extant, I have no opinion. Have at it. But it sounds like a “No True Scotsman” argument.

The two wars are not alike. Afghanistan was precipitated by an attack on American soil, led by a group hiding in Afghanistan. Going after and destroying al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a war of necessity.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a war of choice. As I have said previously, it would have been completely avoided had the elder George Bush not ended the first Iraq war too soon. The younger George Bush wanted to finish that job, and poor intelligence gave him a reason.

But both wars had the same problem: what do you do with a country after you have defeated it in war? Americans of all political stripes learned the wrong lesson from World War II, that a Western-style democracy could be imposed on a defeated foe. Germany and Japan were so thoroughly destroyed, the fighting aged men killed or injured, and the boys soon to reach fighting age so shell shocked, that there was no resistance left, and despite neither nation having any significant democratic experience, the imposition of democracy was successful. In Germany, it was aided by democratic tradition in its neighbors, while in Japan, the orders to the people by the Emperor Hirohito, helped General Douglas MacArthur’s imposed democratic government.

In Iraq, our overwhelming force quickly defeated Saddam Hussein, but really killed relatively few of his soldiers. The fighting aged men, and the boys growing into fighting age over the sixteen years of our presence, were able to think they could resist Westernization successfully. In Afghanistan, we kicked the Taliban out of power, but that place is simply ungovernable by any outsiders, as first the British and then the Soviets learned, and really, by Afghanis themselves; it is not really a nation, but a region of tribes. Westerners deceive themselves into thinking that every ‘nation’ must actually be a nation.

The younger President Bush was, if not a neo-conservative himself, greatly influenced by the neo-cons, and by Natan Sharansky, who wrote in The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, that once people experience democracy, they will continue to want it for themselves. The argument sounds persuasive, but experience has taught us the bitter lesson; some cultures are not so ready for democracy that they will not willingly surrender to a strongman. The various Iraqi factions, all militarily defeated several times, kept coming back to life as new leaders sprung up and more boys grew into men. Then, when Da’ish arose, hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis simply fell into line, just as so many Iranians willingly turned themselves over to the terror of the mullahs.

This was a hard lessons, but conservatives have (mostly) learned it: one nation cannot simply impose its values on another, at least not as long as there are any tough men left alive. The neoconservatives, who were really only ‘conservative’ when it came to a strong military and the willingness to use military power, are almost gone now, just part of the ‘never Trumper’ movement.[1]Via Wikipedia: “In an opinion piece for Foreign Policy in September 2017, Max Boot outlines his political views as follows: “I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion … Continue reading

Today’s conservatives are not the conservatives of fifteen years ago. Not only have conservatives learned some lessons, but many older conservatives have moved into retirement, or gone to their eternal rewards, while newer ones became adults. Domestically, they still believe in the same things: a nation subject only to God, a social order founded on Judeo-Christian values and morality, and that the rights of the individual cannot be subjugated by the state. The libertarian outlook, which has always been part of conservatism, is becoming more pronounced. This is why I have said that, like the TEA Party, the future for libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, is to fold itself into the Republican Party.

One of the things that Libertarians, and note that I use upper-case Libertarian to refer to Libertarian Party members, and lower-case libertarian to refer to those with a basic libertarian philosophy but who don’t belong to the official, hapless, Libertarian Party, have long favored is a withdrawal of American forces and power to our own shores, something totally anathema to the neo-conservatives. While such is not generally part of the Republican Party, President Trump’s America First ideas have pushed that notion into more widespread acceptance among the Republican voters outside of Washington DC. The concept of defending our national interests abroad rather than at our own borders makes a lot of sense; what American wouldn’t rather see the destruction of war in some other land rather than our own?

But that forward defense has led us into wars less of defense than of protecting our sphere of influence, to invading Iraq to prevent Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel used the same notion when it attacked the Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981, and somebody sponsored the surprise assault which killed Iran’s nuclear program’s top scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. I do not in any way disapprove of the killing of Dr Fakhrizadeh, not if it sets back Iran’s attempts to build nuclear weapons. That’s a lot smarter ‘forward defense’ than sending thousands upon thousands of soldiers into Iran to beat down the Iranian army. I suppose that statement would definitely put me at odds with the Libertarian Party.

The conservatives of 2004 would simply not win much support in the Republican Party of today, as former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) found out in the 2016 Republican primaries. Hillary Clinton’s campaign simply assumed that Mr Bush would win the nomination, and actively wanted, and helped, Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination. Mr Trump won because, among other things, he wanted to lead the GOP exactly where Republican voters wanted it to go. The Republican elite, and the Democrats, simply did not understand that then, and I’m not sure that they understand it now.

Is there anything more telling that the elder President Bush voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while the younger President Bush voted for “none of the above” in 2016, and would not disclose his vote this year? Conservatives of 200 and 2004, who pushed the younger Mr Bush’s candidacy strongly enough to defeat Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for the nomination in 2000 are simply not the conservative mainstream of today. Given the tremendous support for President Trump within the GOP, 95% prior to the election and still 90% now, indicate how strongly conservatives of today have moved away from those twenty and sixteen years ago.

The soft heart of conservatism has been burned away; what remains is the cold logic, the logic which says that conservatives must stay the course, for the good of our country, and not wimp out because some people won’t like it or some people will get hurt. It is the logic of the free market and capitalism, which provides an opportunity for people to succeed greatly, but also allows people to fail, and fall, into the depth of despair, knowing that such is the best and most prosperous system for the vast majority of Americans.[2]I am in no way opposed to private charity, and my own charitable contributions are in the four figure range, but I believe that private charity should be, and stay, just that: private.
________________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 Via Wikipedia: “In an opinion piece for Foreign Policy in September 2017, Max Boot outlines his political views as follows: “I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-immigration. I am fiscally conservative: I think we need to reduce the deficit and get entitlement spending under control. I am pro-environment: I think that climate change is a major threat that we need to address. I am pro-free trade: I think we should be concluding new trade treaties rather than pulling out of old ones. I am strong on defense: I think we need to beef up our military to cope with multiple enemies. And I am very much in favor of America acting as a world leader: I believe it is in our own self-interest to promote and defend freedom and free markets as we have been doing in one form or another since at least 1898.

In December 2017, also in Foreign Policy, Boot wrote that recent events—particularly since the 2016 election of Donald Trump as president—had caused him to rethink some of his previous views concerning the existence of white privilege and male privilege. “In the last few years, in particular, it has become impossible for me to deny the reality of discrimination, harassment, even violence that people of color and women continue to experience in modern-day America from a power structure that remains for the most part in the hands of straight, white males. People like me, in other words. Whether I realize it or not, I have benefited from my skin color and my gender — and those of a different gender or sexuality or skin color have suffered because of it.”

Does that sound like a conservative to you?

↑2 I am in no way opposed to private charity, and my own charitable contributions are in the four figure range, but I believe that private charity should be, and stay, just that: private.
Posted on by

Did the Green Party candidate cost President Trump the vote in Pennsylvania? The Democrats kept Howie Hawkins off the ballot

I noted in Blaming the Libertarian Party that I did not believe The Wall Street Journal’s claim that Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen somehow cost President Trump the 2020 election. But The Philadelphia Inquirer is making the case that the exclusion of Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins from the Pennsylvania ballot may have carried the Keystone State for Joe Biden:

Pennsylvania Democrats may have saved Biden by knocking the Green Party candidate off the ballot

Howie Hawkins, from Howie Hawkins for President campaign.

In a particularly litigious presidential campaign, one legal fight may have saved President-elect Joe Biden’s chances of winning Pennsylvania — and the presidency.

The state Supreme Court, in a split verdict Sept. 17, removed Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins from the ballot for improper paperwork. The legal challenge was filed on behalf of two Democrats by Pittsburgh attorney Clifford Levine, who was representing the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in other cases.

“The concern was that, if you looked at the results in 2016, the Green Party candidate got more votes than the margin between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,” Levine said Monday. “There was obviously a concern that a third-party candidate may effectively dilute the focus that we thought was important, that it be a race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.”

Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 nominee, won 49,941 votes in Pennsylvania in 2016, as Clinton fell to Trump by 44,292 votes, a margin of just 0.7%.

Biden held a lead of about 54,000 votes over Trump in the state, as of Thursday. Pennsylvania secured an Electoral College win for Biden on Saturday as media outlets across the country called the state in his favor.

The Green Party’s nominees for attorney general, auditor general, and treasurer all won far more votes than Biden’s lead.

Note that Miss Jorgensen was not kept off the Pennsylvania ballot, and thus the common wisdom would have had her syphoning votes from President Trump, but Mr Hawkins could not have taken away many votes from Mr Biden, other than write-in votes.

It’s still a bit of a difficult argument to make, given that it was also common knowledge, pushed every day by the Inquirer, that the race was extremely close, and that Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes might be decisive. Remembering Hillary Clinton’s narrow loss in Pennsylvania, I have to ask how many people would have voted for the Green Party candidate.

Posted on by

Blaming the Libertarian Party

Our too-few readers know that while I support lower-case libertarianism to the extent possible, I don’t have a lot of use for the upper-case Libertarian Party. But this kind of Libertarian-blaming in The Wall Street Journal is pretty much stupid, because it is based on a false assumption:

Libertarians Spoil the Election

Jo Jorgensen exceeds Biden’s margin in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia.

By Walter E. Block | November 8, 2020 3:34 PM EST

Did the Libertarian Party throw the election to Joe Biden? Maybe. At this writing nominee Jo Jorgensen’s vote total exceeds Mr. Biden’s margin over President Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania, enough to change the outcome.

In 2000 the Green Party was accused of ruining things for the Democrats. Did Ralph Nader throw the election from Al Gore to George W. Bush? The cognoscenti are still divided, but the 2020 parallels are strong. Probably most Green voters would have gone Democratic if forced into a binary choice. Similarly, on the Libertarian-O-Meter, Mr. Trump scores much higher than Mr. Biden.

In this, Walter Block, the writer, assumes that the vast majority of Miss Jorgensen’s votes would have gone to President Trump. But of the four states he mentioned, Nevada has been ‘blue’ for several election cycles, including 2016, and Arizona has been electing Democratic senators as well. It’s previous Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, were not exactly hard-line conservatives. Pennsylvania being carried by Mr Trump in 2016 was a surprise; no Republican had carried the Keystone State since the elder George Bush did it in 1988.

That these states were ‘battleground’ states was no surprise; the media had been pushing that seemingly forever. If those who voted for Miss Jorgensen were really preferred Mr Trump to Mr Biden, they knew that their votes mattered, in a way that Libertarian votes in Kentucky or California or New York did not, and could have chosen to vote for the President. That they did not, in a known-to-be-close election, where their votes really could make a difference, tells me that they didn’t want to vote for Mr Trump, period.

Yes, the Donald is a protectionist, and free trade is the preferred policy of those who favor economic and personal liberty. But when it comes to lowering taxes and easing regulations on business, the party of the elephant is far more closely aligned to the libertarian philosophy than that of the donkey. Mr. Trump has appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court, not libertarians like Randy Barnett, Clint Bolick, Jacob Huebert, Gregory Rome or Brandon Thibodeaux. But supporters of the freedom philosophy prefer judges who adhere to the U.S. Constitution over those who make things up as they go along.

In contrast, Mr. Biden is a puppet in the marionette hands of out-and-out socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, there are some issues on which libertarians are closer to Democrats, such as Oregon’s decriminalization of heroin and cocaine. But these are few and far between.

This is why I have said that, like the TEA Party, the future for libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, is to fold itself into the Republican Party.

The national Libertarian Party started in 1971, several state parties earlier. In 1969 I had the honor to run for the New York Assembly. My motto was “Disassemble the Assembly.” I didn’t win; I’m not sure my vote total reached triple digits. But I’ve been a staunch member of the party ever since.

If Dr Block believes that the GOP is far closer to libertarian ideals than the Democrats, he should, as “a staunch member of the party,” be working for exactly what I have advocated: getting the Libertarian Party involved in Republican politics. The purpose of a political party is to unify and get people with your particular policy views elected into government office, to put your views into governing policy. In that, the Libertarian Party has been a rather spectacular failure.

Of course, Dr Block might not be the best choice of a person to do this, and I am stunned that The Wall Street Journal provided him with print space. Why? Because Dr Block has defended racial segregation.

Now, he did that in typical libertarian fashion, stressing the right to free assembly and association includes the right to not associate with people with whom you do not wish to associate. It’s actually a reasonable argument, but certain arguments that are philosophically reasonable are simply so far out of the mainstream — and The Wall Street Journal is nothing if not mainstream — that making them in polite society is to excuse oneself from polite society. Dr Block wrote, in 2013:

What sticks in my craw here is that crack about Woolworth’s lunch counter. I cannot be 100% sure, I wish this man would write more clearly, but in my interpretation Selley is saying that this firm was not justified in refusing to serve black people; the implication is that the so called Civil Rights Act of 1964 was entirely justified. Of course, one of the basic tenets of libertarianism is the law of free association. No one should be compelled, at the point of a government gun, to associate with anyone else, against his will. Compelling Woolworths to seat blacks is thus incompatible with libertarianism. It was a violation of their private property rights over their establishment.

Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to “associate” with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.

Emphasis mine.

One can make the argument that “the major problem with slavery” was its denial of free association only if one ignores that slaves were treated as property and not as human beings. Saying that “otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad” ignores the fact that slaves could be, and some were, beaten, raped or even killed, because the slaveowners could do so with impunity. He makes his arguments much as a college sophomore might at a drunken party — I know; I once was a college sophomore — with just enough education to know a few facts without any concept of the larger world around him. In the internet era, none of your philosophical discussions are truly private, and your past arguments will always be carried over to your present situation.

In one way, Dr Block is simply the Libertarian Party, writ small. The official Party’s strange combination of ideological purity on the part of some of its staunchest advocates combined with its willingness to nominate people like William Weld for Vice President in 2016 runs off people who might otherwise be more inclined to appreciate libertarian philosophy. It’s no wonder that Libertarian candidates always lose.
_____________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.