Topic: Political Philosophy

The Ballad of Ron Paul, 2012

By
David Boaz

Four years ago the Onion offered a lyrical farewell to the Ron Paul campaign:

WASHINGTON—After piling the last of his Campaign for Liberty signs in the back of a beat-up Ford truck Thursday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) once again abandoned his candidacy for president and rode on out toward the low western sun, but not before vowing to come back to Washington “when [the country] is ready.” “When the river swirls and the wind blows, and when uncontrollable inflation forces us to revert to the gold standard, and the Federal Reserve bank is exposed as the unconstitutional, neofascist cabal it really is, you’ll see me coming over that hill,” said Paul, leaving a dusty cowboy hat and a stack of “no” votes on his seat in the House of Representatives. “But don’t you fret, America. If you ever feel like your government is getting too big or too intrusive, just give a little whistle, and there I’ll be. I’ll be there quicker’n you can spit.” Although no one has seen or heard from the Texas congressman since Thursday, sources report the Ron Paul for President campaign has gained an additional $2.3 million in contributions since his disappearance.

As it turned out, it wasn’t long until America did begin to “feel like your government is getting too big or too intrusive,” and Paul came back with his message of smaller government, sound money, constitutionalism, and an end to endless debt and endless war. And the voters were a lot more receptive than they had been four years earlier. The Republican platform will reflect the efforts of Ron Paul and his movement.

Back in 2008 I heard the echoes of Tom Joad in that “final speech,” and I noticed that in fact Ron Paul had been all over the airwaves as practically the only congressional critic of the bailout and the policies that led to it. So I got to musing about another working-class icon, Joe Hill, and wrote some new words to his tune. Now that Ron Paul is ending another presidential campaign, and his career in Congress, they’re as relevant as ever:

I dreamed I saw Ron Paul last night,
Still running on TV.
Says I “But Ron, you lost ‘em all”
“I’ll never quit” said he,
“I’ll never quit” said he.

“The Money Power beat you, Ron,
They beat you, Ron,” says I.
“Takes more than Fox to beat ideas,”
Says Ron “I didn’t quit”
Says Ron “I didn’t quit.”

“In South Carolina, Ron,” says I,
“You stood up to the war.
Then Rudy knocked you back again.”
Says Ron, “But I was right.”
Says Ron, “But I was right.”

From Baghdad back to Main Street,
In every funeral hall
Where grieving moms inter their sons,
it’s there you find Ron Paul,
it’s there you find Ron Paul!

And taking on the Fed Reserve
and smiling with his eyes,
Says Ron, “The bailout cannot work,
It’s time to privatize.
It’s time to privatize.”

From Texas up to Washington,
in every lecture hall,
Where working men defend their gold,
it’s there you find Ron Paul,
it’s there you find Ron Paul!

I dreamed I saw Ron Paul last night,
Still running on TV.
Says I “But Ron, you lost ‘em all.”
“I’ll never quit” says he,
“I’ll never quit” says he.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics, Political Philosophy

(Alas) There’s No BBQ Clause in the Constitution

By
Ilya Shapiro

Surprisingly, President Obama’s first direct attack on Paul Ryan since the congressman’s selection as Mitt Romney VP nominee doesn’t involve the threat of grandma being pushed off a cliff. Instead, it involves the latest farm bill, which has too many subsidies and food-stamp increases for House Republicans’ tastes (good for them).

Now, I’m no expert in agriculture policy – for more on farm bills and related disasters, I recommend my colleague Sallie James’s work – but one provision in the disputed legislation caught my eye: Apparently the federal government plans to buy over $150 million of meat and fish. Sounds like a great cookout, but what gives the government the power to do that? Where exactly is the Constitution’s BBQ Clause?

If only President Obama could take a page from another embattled Democratic president facing a drought-stricken nation: In 1887, Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $10,000 for seeds for suffering Texas farmers, saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” (For more on that and other similar examples, see this report from 10 years ago this month.)

What a long way we’ve come.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy

The Iron Grip of Polarization

By
David Boaz

Like a lot of people these days, the actress Kathleen Turner is very concerned about polarization in Washington. She has a special reason to be concerned: She’s coming to Washington’s Arena Stage to do a one-woman show, “Red Hot Patriot: The Kick-Ass Wit of Molly Ivins,’ based on the life and writings of the sharp-tongued liberal columnist. She tells the Washington Examiner:

“One of these challenges may be getting a wide enough breadth of people to come, you know, because people are so closed-minded now, that if they think it doesn’t represent their point of view, they’re not interested,” she said. “I’m afraid it will be like – if you’re a Republican, don’t go to the show – it’s a real shame both artistically and as a reflection of our nation’s mentality.”

Fortunately, liberals from Hollywood don’t have that sort of us-against-them mentality:

But while Ivins became famous for mocking former President George W. Bush, nicknaming him “Shrub” and “Dubya,” Turner told us that her approach to dealing with the Bush years was a bit more subtle.

“I had to do some real dodging there once in a while, but I pretty much managed it,” she said, explaining that she “purposely” never met Bush. “I used to be on the Kennedy Center artistic, you know, selection board and those events are always held at the White House, and so then I had to bow out for a few years, didn’t I?”

It’s a real shame when Republicans are closed-minded.

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Political Philosophy

On the Perils of Single-Issue Politics – Breastfeeding Edition

By
Roger Pilon

Earlier this week I wrote about the perils of the NRA’s single-issue politics. Now it’s breastfeeding moms in the crosshairs – different issue, same principle.

In the NRA case, it seems that they’re going after a Tennessee state legislator – a long-time NRA member and supporter, no less – who opposed a bill that would have allowed employees to keep guns in their cars while parked in their private employers’ parking lots. The principle at issue there could not be simpler or more basic to a free society: individuals, including private employers, should have a right to determine the conditions on which others may enter their property. The NRA’s mistake is in asking the state to restrict that right in the name of the Second Amendment, which of course applies only against governmental, not private, restrictions.

The breastfeeding moms make a similar mistake. We learn from NPR this morning that a number of them have just gathered en masse and staged a “Great Nurse-In” at the U.S. Capitol. Their aim is to secure “federal protection of breastfeeding everywhere.” Everywhere? In my home, my business?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m no more against the right to breastfeed than I am against the right to keep and bear arms. That’s not the point. Rather, the point is that, in a free society, the property right is fundamental, starting with your property in your person and your liberty, which you can exercise only to the extent that you respect the equal rights of others. Property rights set the lines that determine where one person’s rights end and the next person’s begin, which is why getting those lines right is so crucial to a society that aspires to protecting equal rights.

The breastfeeding moms might well object if they were forced to allow people to carry guns into their businesses, just as the gun owners might object to being forced to allow breastfeeding in theirs. And it isn’t that some values are better than others. We can argue over that all day and get nowhere. With rights, by contrast, there’s a good possibility of agreement. In fact, the nation is based on a live-and-let-live principle we largely agreed on at the outset – and lived by, for the most part, until we started asking government to impose our values on others, leading to the war of all against all that we see all about us today and to the politicization of everything, including parking lots and breastfeeding.

Topics: 
General, Law and Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy

Civil Egalitarianism

By
John Samples

This morning’s newspaper brings news of government officials seeking to punish individuals who provided relevant information to the public. In this case, the officials are seeking individuals who leaked secret information about national security issues.

Here’s the problem with these investigations: disclosing the source of the leaks will lead to retaliation by government officials against the leaker which in turn will lead to fewer leaks in the future and less information for the public. As the New York Times puts it, “Investigations into Security Leaks is Casting Chill on Coverage.”

Yet the editorial board of that same newspaper has long supported public disclosure of the sources of campaign spending which can lead to retaliation from government officials against the source of the spending, thereby discouraging future spending on speech and in the end, less information for the public.

Why the differences in perspective? The cynical among us might think the costs of disclosing the sources of national security leaks fall on the media (above all, the New York Times) while the costs of disclosing campaign spending fall on people who compete with the media for public attention. But I am not so cynical to think the media are so narrowly self-interested.

Media folks may also think that retaliation is much more likely from national security officials than from officials concerned about winning elections. But why? The incentives seem at least equally strong in both cases. If anything, suppressing speech seems more directly related to election outcomes than keeping official secrets. How many votes did Wikileaks cost the Obama administration in 2010?

A “business model” explanation also comes up short. The media does depend on national leakers for information to repackage and sell. So they are protecting their inputs. The media also repackage disclosed campaign spending information. But such information would be much more valuable to the media if it were secret in the first place. Has anyone received a Pulitzer for writing yet another story about SuperPACs?

Consider this alternative explanation for the difference. Egalitarianism is the view that politics should be about helping the oppressed and harming the oppressor. In the national security context, the oppressor class comprises military and national security officials. They are icons of inequality working as they do in hierarchical organizations wasting public money that could be redistributed to the truly deserving. In campaign finance, the oppressors are business people - i.e. “the rich and powerful” - who have unequal wealth. Disclosing sources in the national security case helps the oppressor and increases inequality. Not disclosing sources in the campaign finance case has the same effect. The question is not what the government does but rather its effect on equality.

I conclude we should not call use the broad term “civil libertarian” to refer to everyone concerned about government limiting information to the public. Instead, we should focus on the purposes and values that inform political action. Media folks are largely “civil egalitarians.” Those concerned about liberty from government are properly called “civil libertarians.”

Why does this matter? Naturally I would be happy if “civil egalitarians” would become, by my lights, more consistent and thus, “civil libertarians.” Even if they do not, both sides should keep in mind when working together on politics that theirs is coalition of circumstances and not a coalition of common purpose.

 

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics, Law and Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy

Intolerant Politicians

By
Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Are politicians getting too involved in the Chick-fil-A controversy? Has the debate resulted in any positive developments for either side?

My response:

Let’s take this chronologically. Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy told Baptist Press that he supported “the biblical definition of the family unit.” That was too much for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, and others, Emanuel saying he’d block a new Chick-fil-A location in the city, Menino warning that “if they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.” That led to Mike Huckabee’s call for a Chick-fil-A “appreciation day” and yesterday’s massive show of support for CEO Cathy.

So to today’s questions. Are politicians getting too involved in this controversy? Absolutely. It’s one thing for them to express their opinions – they’re free to do that, just as Dan Cathy is. But they go over the line when they threaten to use their power to punish Cathy for expressing his opinion. Emanuel and Menino are bully boys, plain and simple. Cathy’s views may be narrow and intolerant. I’m of the view, for example, that people ought to be free to associate as they wish, as long as they respect the rights of others, and others ought to be free to respect those associations, or not. Government, however, cannot pick and choose which associations to respect. It belongs to all of us.

We don’t know whether Cathy would support banning same-sex marriage – or at least I haven’t seen evidence of that. We do know, however, that Emanuel and Menino would punish Cathy for speaking his mind. That’s intolerance not simply of action but of speech. So, to today’s second question, to the extent that the mayors’ intolerance has been condemned, that’s a good thing.

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Political Philosophy

It’s the Message, Stupid

By
Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Senator Marco Rubio, Governors Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval, and now Ted Cruz’s victory yesterday, all Republicans:  Are Democrats mishandling minority recruitment efforts?

My response:

Ted Cruz’s victory yesterday over Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst was no fluke. Dewhurst represented the GOP establishment, which stands for little but staying in office, whereas Cruz, an educated and articulate young voice, spoke about liberty and opportunity under limited constitutional government. That’s the same message we hear from Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, and Brian Sandoval.

Like the Republican establishment, therefore, Democrats, with their paucity of attractive Latino politicians, aren’t so much mishandling their minority recruitment efforts as mishandling their message. Prospective minority candidates need a vision that resonates, not the vision the Democratic establishment is selling. Latinos are no different than others: They want a life of opportunity, not a life of dependence on government. Who wants to live the “Life of Julia”?

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Political Philosophy

Pages