Sorry, very busy and haven't blogged for several days. Which is a lame way to justify that I don't have much to say about New Hampshire. Okay, here are a few thoughts: An upsurge for Giuliani (who may yet come back), whatever his others failings, would have sent a message that the GOP nationally was prepared to embrace socially tolerant views. Huckabee and Romney at the forefront would send the opposite message, that hardline social conservatism is not going to give way in the Grand Old Party. John McCain comes out better than midway between the two-he opposed the federal anti-gay marriage amendment but supported a state amendment in Arizona (which, as it turned out, was the first in the nation to be defeated at the polls). In the past, he has called the leaders of the religious right on their intolerance, but this time round seems to have concluded that such honesty was a strategic mistake. Still, he's not really one of them, and they know it.
The other blog-worthy political story is the Ron Paul newsletter revelations by James Kirchick. I believe Paul's statement that he did not write the racist, anti-gay screeds that went out in newsletters bearing his name. And he still gets credit for answering "sure" when ABC's John Stossel asked if gays should be allowed to marry (each other, that is). But Paul did license his name to be used on these newsletters (presumably for a profit) and it just won't do to say that he was too busy to keep an eye on what was happening. These rants are old style, hard-right bigotry and not in the least "libertarian." [David Boaz shares his thoughts on the foul newsletters, here. And tangentially, Ilya Somin defends real-deal libertarianism after Michael Kinsley misses the point, here.]
Shifting gears, I'm beginning to like that disgraced Idaho Sen. Larry Craig keeps fighting his restroom sting arrest, arguing in a new court filing that the underlying act wasn't criminal because it didn't involve "multiple victims."
The brief also argues that [the arresting officer who entrapped Craig] himself could not have been offended by the alleged conduct because "he invited it." The alleged conduct, Craig's lawyers added, doesn't rise to the level of being "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy."
Quite right. The state achieves no justifiable end in conducting this type of entrapment, which gives police an easy means to fulfill their arrest quotas by creating misery for the confused and closeted.
21 Comments for “A Few Political Thoughts”
posted by Brian Miller on
Apparently, Ron Paul “doesn’t read” the letters he sends out — and signs with his own signature — either.
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
In the letter, Paul talks of a “conspiracy to track money” and also talks about a “federal-homosexual AIDS conspiracy.”
Not only is Ron Paul not a “libertarian,” but he must assume that most people are as stupid as his supporters to believe that he doesn’t read the content of his own newsletters — and his own letters, period!
Libertarians from across the spectrum, including Virginia Postrel (formerly of Reason) have come out of the woodwork to note that Paul’s views on black people, gays and Jews were well-known on the right all throughout the 1990s, and that while he probably didn’t write some of the worst articles, they accurately reflect his views (and he profited from those views).
posted by Avee on
“McCain…opposed the federal anti-gay marriage amendment but supported a state amendment in Arizona…”
For some perspective, let’s remember that this is the exact same stance that Kerry/Edwards took four years ago — opposing the federal amendment but supporting state amendments.
posted by Richard on
Congressman Paul has never been a real libertarian. He is a man who has made money by saying what certain people want to hear.
posted by Mark on
I make no excuses for Congressman Paul’s negligence in letting some pretty offensive stuff go out under his name, but I’m still voting for him as he is the only candidate in favor of a sensible foreign policy, reducing government and getting out of Iraq ASAP.
posted by Lori Heine on
Ron Paul’s views on gays (if indeed those are his views) are certainly odious. But what needs to be kept in mind is that libertarians DO NOT believe in imposing their personal views on others.
I find a waffling, play-to-the-crowd Democrat or Republican — who swears up and down that he just LOOOOOVES gays, but will toss us overboard politically at the drop of a hat or the turn of a poll — far more dangerous than someone like Paul, who may dislike gays but is willing to keep it merely a matter of personal opinion.
We’ve gotten all touchy-feely, here in America, about what people really-really-really-really-really-REALLY think about us. Thus the pathetic spectacle of Silky Pony Edwards emoting about how he agonizes about our issue. Who the hell should have to care how Edwards feels? That should be between him and his pastor, his mommy or his shrink. It’s nothing but a bunch of self-indulgent, narcissistic crap.
posted by Mark on
Lori,
I’m fairly certain Ron is not a homophobe, but he has let a lot of not very nice stuff go out under his name that may appeal to some of his more right-wing supporters.
However, your point that we should be more concerned about what a politician will do as far as making law and policy (as opposed to their personal feelings)is a good one.
posted by TJR on
I’m just amazed at how some people on this site still heap hope on the GOP candidates who won’t give an LGBT audience the time of day. Ron Paul is a Republican and he will do what all Republican presidents do best if the impossible happens and he gets elected. He will claim to be a fiscal conservative yet run up the nation’s debt, claim not to impose his personal beliefs on others yet support DADT and support free unregulated enterprise to the detriment of the American middle class. His response to the hateful newsletters released by his campaign is simply brilliant. Ron Paul is the perfect Republican.
posted by Jorge on
Watching the debate today, when Ron Paul got asked what he thinks about “9/11 truthers” who support him, I think I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he believes the things some of his supporters have said or ghostwritten. But he’s a little dense.
“Sure” really isn’t a good answer to such an important question. It implies you don’t think a lot about the people who care about it. Sometimes Ron Paul gives the impression that all the advances of gays in public life never happened to him. Well I’d rather be heard by an opponent than ignored. When Mike Huckabee talks about the importance of (straight) marriage, when Romney talks about what he did after the Massachussets marriage decision, they can’t bash gay people directly, much less ignore us. And for all that they’re social conservatives, times have changed enough that Romney and Huckabee have to find some way to say how they think gays fit into the American community, they can’t ignore us or say they want to include us. That’s important.
posted by Brian Miller on
Ron Paul’s views on gays (if indeed those are his views) are certainly odious. But what needs to be kept in mind is that libertarians DO NOT believe in imposing their personal views on others.
In that case, Ron Paul’s not a libertarian either, seeing that he’s an enthusiastic supporter of DOMA — and also believes that states have the “right” to violate the constitution.
Anyway, stick a fork in him, he’s done.
Incidentally, I had a radio interview with Angela Keaton yesterday, discussing the Ron Paul situation, progress on marriage equality, and gay politics in general. You can hear the 40 minute interview at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/3yvbwl
posted by The Gay Species on
After the Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, and George McGovern Fiascos, I was all too delighted to help established the Libertarian Party on the California ballot in 1974. On first acquaintance, it seemed smartly “LIBERAL” in a way the Repub/Democrats were not.
But, it does not take long to distinguish ‘LIBERALISM’ as a principles of means to an end, and Libertarianism as principles that are in themselves ends. Friends joined me at the Party’s San Francisco Convention, wherein this important distinction, otherwise obscured, was manifest.
Self-rule, equality, autonomy, markets, freedom, etc., are truly liberal values of the Enlightenment that still shine on people’s aspirations 300 years later. But as MEANS, never as ENDS. The example of which is Ron Paul’s reduction of everything to unfettered capitalism. Everything.
Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who never saw a factory, and even if he had, it would look nothing like today’s. The principle of FREE EXCHANGE is not itself the end, but a MEANS to different choices, and the different choices are witness to the freedom that consumers/producers should have in a free society. As long as reasonable choices are available, I could care less who or how that is made available in terms of economic policy. But, I for one, want to know if Ron Paul would repeal Regulation Z: Truth in Lending, enacted in 1969? I bet he would, and I bet that explains why no one trusts libertarians, other than to be mistake means for ends.
Reg Z was enacted by Congress because financial institutions could represent the “interest” or “finance charge” of debt in at least a dozen ways, e.g., discount, add-on, simple, each incoherent to the consumer. Reg Z. simply required lenders to disclose the cost of borrowing in its formula of APR. Banks, consumer finance, and money sharks protest that their “freedom to business” was compromised, but the law still passed.
And UNTIL Bush, Reg Z was uniformly enforced. Consumers could know the “actual interest costs” regardless of what method of calculation. Then bankers demanded a “debtors prison” rather than use their standards to enforce good credit, and Bush for the first time created a Debtors Prison, revoking a person’s right to discharge revolving debt in bankruptcy, not because the CREDITORS could not stop the misuses, but that they PROMOTED the misuse, and wanted government to eliminate any exodus from their fees, surcharges, usury, and other “incidentals.”
That’s unfettered UNFAIR free market – a libertarian orgasm. A Market no debtor can overcome, because the Market does not want consumers to yank their creditor’s chain for UNFAIR practices, even if the CREDITOR promoted the abuse.
Welcome to SUB-Prime, only a tool of devils who believe negative amortizations, balloon instalments, and housing values offer no losses — except to the FOOL who does not know better. Want to bet who will BAIL the market exploiters with the taxes?
Other than Libertarians’ rightful apotheosis of individual freedoms WITH RESPONSIBILITY, the party of Cato Institute is just GREED written by the Dollar God. It may explain why it has approved prostitution as a right, when others thought exploitation — even if consensual — might need WISDOM and INSIGHT, rather than Jungle Fever.
posted by Richard on
Lori;
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Never has been and never will be. Ron Paul says what is needed to benifit Ron Paul.
Paul’s “personal opinion” on gays is that their is no right to privacy and thus the government should be allowed to imprison (maybe even kill) citizens for being gay.
posted by Brian Miller on
One of the more hilarious “observations” of the left wing is that the present sub-prime (and prime) loan crisis is a failure of “free markets.”
Couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that the big banks are federally insured from failure. By slicing up and selling bad loans, and fraudulently rating them as “AAA” when they were “CC” at best, they could make big profits.
And when things caught up with them, they could just count on a bailout from the FDIC (a government agency) and the Federal Reserve (a quasi government agency).
The Fed has flooded the market with “liquidity” recently to bail out banks that made bad loans.
In a Libertarian society, the banks that made bad loans would go out of business, and the excesses of the recent mortgage bubble never would have taken off, since the government wouldn’t have been in the business of privatizing profit and socializing risk.
All those 6.5% Countrywide “savings accounts” are at yields that Countrywide probably cannot make a profit on — yet Countrywide was able to offer the rates due to FDIC insurance, and keep the subprime thing going for years. It’s likely the sale to Bank of America was brokered by the federal government — who are loathe to allow those who profited from the rampant fraud to be prosecuted.
Fast-forward to the biggest beneficiaries of donations from questionable mortgage lenders, and you find they’re all the “top tier” candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. And most of the “regulation” by government in the financial services sector is thus authored by those big banks.
A Libertarian government would deregulate the market and stop subsidizing poorly-run banks that made predatory loans. Those banks would collapse in short order.
In addition, subprime borrowers have responsibility in the mess as well. Nobody held a gun to their heads and told them to take a negative amortization loan for 10x their income with a balloon payment and ARM resets. Lots of us read the paperwork and refused to commit financial suicide — whereas many who did sign the papers (and buy fancy cars and vacations with their “home equity” money) are now demanding the financially prudent savers and renters pay for their Hummers, Cadillacs, $25K vacations, and houses they cannot afford. They call themselves “victims,” which is difficult to stomach as well.
posted by Amanda R. on
As a libertarian and a lesbian, I don’t believe that Paul is a libertarian either. He’s a neo-conservative masquerading as one, making all the “right” noises about limited government, but with scant regard for human rights, civil liberties and individual freedom.
And given his anti-freedom/anti-choice stance on abortion, I’m less than surprised to learn that he’s just as much of a fool when it comes to lesbian and gay rights.
posted by Hob Bope on
‘These rants are old style, hard-right bigotry and not in the least “libertarian.” [David Boaz shares his thoughts on the foul newsletters, here. And tangentially, Ilya Somin defends real-deal libertarianism after Michael Kinsley misses the point, here.]’
Comments like that are just silly. The word ‘libertarianism’ has no generally agreed upon meaning, so it’s useless to debate who is and who isn’t a ‘real’ libertarian. If by ‘libertarian’, one means a consistent and principled advocate of individual freedom, with no qualifications and no ifs or buts, then pretty much no one is a ‘libertarian.’
posted by Richard on
Actually, libertarianism is a political philosophy that DOES have generally agreed upon meaning.
Agree or disagree with a political philosophy, but people should have a basic understanding of what Congressman Paul is vs. what he claims to be.
The bottom line? Congressman Paul is probably looking to make some money by posing as a libertarian and a right-wing populist.
posted by Hob Bope on
Richard, you can say that all you like, but it’s not true. Anyone who spends some time reading debates between rival kinds of ‘libertarian’ will quickly realize that they cannot even agree on exactly what they mean by ‘libertarianism.’
posted by Bobby on
Look Miller, if you’re gonna vote for Rudy, you might as well vote for Hillary or Obama. Rudy is a nice guy for New York, but not for the rest of the country. And forgive me for saying it but just because he survived 9/11 doesn’t mean he’s the expert on terrorism the media seems to think he is. Just like McCain isn’t a military expert just because he happened to serve in the military nor is Romney a business expert just because he came from a business background. They’re are no experts in this elections, only pseudo-conservatives and hard-core liberals.
posted by Brian Miller on
Anyone who spends some time reading debates between rival kinds of ‘libertarian’ will quickly realize that they cannot even agree on exactly what they mean by ‘libertarianism.’
A similar argument could be made about “liberalism” and “conservatism” too — and it would be equally wrong.
For instance, there are the anti-war conservatives (Raimondo and Buchanan) and the pro-war conservatives (Cheney). There are the pro-social-program conservatives (Huckabee and Romney) and the anti-social-program conservatives (Reagan).
There are the pro-war liberals (Hillary) and the anti-war liberals (Kucinich). There are the deficit-hawk liberals (Bill Clinton) and the “deficits don’t matter” liberals (Bonior). There are the pro-gay equality liberals (Kucinich and Gravel) and the anti-gay equality liberals (the rest of the Democratic presidential field).
All of them argue ceaselessly. By your logic, since “liberals” and “conservatives” cannot agree on an exact definition of liberalism and conservatism, respectively, liberalism and conservatism don’t exist.
posted by Hob Bope on
Yes, Brian, a similar argument could definitely be made about liberalism, and conservatism, and it would be equally right. The point is not that people who use these labels disagree about various issues; the point is that they are totally incapable of agreeing to a definition of what the labels mean. Hence, for example, the endless, largely pointless disputes between ‘libertarians’ about what ‘real’ libertarianism is.
posted by Brian Miller on
Nonsense.
A “real” libertarian is, simply, someone who doesn’t advocate the use of government to punish those with whom he disagrees, or to coerce others who are not violating the rights of others.
Dr. Paul was never a libertarian, because he is an adherent of classic right-wing Republican “states’ rights” federalism — that federal power over people (and states) should be limited, while state governments should receive unlimited power to do whatever they want to their residents/citizens.
Libertarians do not oppose or support unlimited government power based on the level of government — in fact, they care little for whether the jack-boot crushing one’s throat is a federal soldier, state marshal or local police officer. Libertarians believe in individual rights, not “states’ rights.”
Thus, anyone who advocates the rights of state government as being superior to the rights of individuals is, quite simply, not a libertarian. He or she might share ideas in common with libertarians, but he’s inherently a conservative.
posted by Hob Bope on
‘A “real” libertarian is, simply, someone who doesn’t advocate the use of government to punish those with whom he disagrees, or to coerce others who are not violating the rights of others.’
According to you, Brian. Is there any special reason why your definition of ‘libertarian’ should be accepted? To me it seems vague (what precisely are the ‘rights of others’? does not ‘punishing those with whom he disagrees’ include opposition to libel laws?) and without much real meaning. It isn’t helpful to define ‘libertarianism’ based on a vague general formula that could mean different things in practice.