Topic: Political Philosophy

Can the Communist Party Take Back the Czech Republic?

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC—The Czech Republic is one of the most successful members of the former Soviet Empire. Yet Czechs with whom I recently spoke fear liberty is in retreat. The former Communist Party might reenter government after elections later this month. 

Czechoslovakia was “liberated” by the Red Army at the end of World War II. After the Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, the so-called Velvet Revolution ousted the Czech Communist Party. Czechoslovakia soon adopted wide-ranging free market economic reforms and split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

In March Milos Zeman became the country’s first popularly elected president. The former Social Democratic prime minister has roiled Czech politics by claiming ever more expansive authority. 

Most dramatically, after the prime minister’s summer resignation President Zeman appointed a leftist government against the wishes of the parliamentary majority. The new cabinet lost a vote of confidence, but remains as caretaker until the upcoming election. 

Equally controversial are the president’s policies.  As I wrote in my new Forbes online article:

Moreover, the president reversed course on the EU after appealing to supporters of the Euro-skeptic [former President Vaclav] Klaus during the presidential campaign.  Once in office President Zeman hoisted the EU flag over the Prague Castle, which hosts the presidential office, and signed the European Stability Mechanism, the EU bail-out fund.  He describes himself as a “Euro-Federalist,” advocates common European fiscal, tax, foreign, and defense policies, and supports adopting the Euro as the Czech currency.

The greater worry is the revival of the Communist Party. As memories of Communist repression fade, some Czechs long for the perceived stability of the past. 

“Why Liberty?”

Need something to read during the shutdown? You’re in luck, because Students for Liberty and the Atlas Network have released a new book of original essays on the question, “Why Liberty?” It includes a piece on the humble case for liberty by yours truly, and is packed with great stuff. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s the book’s editor, Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer:

You can order a copy online or snag a free PDF. 

Germany Votes against Limited Government

The world’s most watched elections occur in America. The world’s most boring election just occurred in Germany. As expected, Chancellor Angela Merkel was effectively reelected.

The Federal Republic of Germany is the world’s most admired nation and possesses Europe’s largest economy. Berlin’s political and economic stability is the envy of the European Union.

Merkel has served as chancellor for eight years. A skilled political infighter, she exudes confidence and competence.

Germans rewarded her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), with 41.5 percent of the vote, well ahead of the more left-wing Social Democratic Party. However, the CDU/CSU fell five seats short of a parliamentary majority. And Merkel current coalition partner, the Free Democratic Party, failed to receive the 5 percent of the vote necessary to be represented in the Bundestag.

Commentary on the election has focused on Merkel’s triumph. There is little doubt that she will remain chancellor. The only question is the identity of her coalition partner–and what price she will have to pay for that party’s support.

Ironically, policy isn’t likely to change very much as a result of the election. Merkel has steadily pulled her party leftward. Cem Ozdemir, co-chair of the Green Party, complained that the chancellor “becomes Green when it helps her and becomes a Social Democrat when that’s beneficial too.”

Alas, her policies helped wreck Germany’s liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP). The Free Democrats were created in 1949 and have served in the Bundestag ever since. In 2009 they made their best showing ever, 14.6 percent. Now, with just 4.8 percent of the vote, they are out of the Bundestag.

Ted Cruz Speech Nods to Increasing Libertarian Views within Republican Party

During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped “libertarians” at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat’s “What is Seen and Unseen,” a favorite among libertarians.

Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.

Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters. This is a strong claim. It’s worth explaining the methodology behind the study, as libertarian views gain more and more attention in the press.

As David Boaz and I have noted in our two studies on the Libertarian Vote, and ebook with Emily Ekins, Gallup has tracked “libertarian” beliefs since 1993 using a combination of two questions on the role of government:

  • Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?
  • Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

Gallup defines libertarians as those who think government is doing “too many things” and should not “promote traditional values.”

In the chart below the jump, Gallup data show a 19 percentage point increase in libertarian views among Republicans and Republican leaning independents in the decade between 2002 and 2012. In 2002, libertarians represented 15 percent of Republicans; in 2012, 34 percent.

Fusionism: Hot or Cold?

This Thursday at Cato, we’re hosting a book forum on the new book by vice chairman of the American Conservative Union Donald J. Devine: America’s Way Back: Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution. (Register here).

Devine’s conservative credentials are impeccable: a veteran of the Reagan campaign, he served as head of the administration’s Office of Personnel Management, where, as a Washington Post profile once put it, “at the mere mention of his name, federal workers grit their teeth and express fear and loathing.” He was also an early and vocal critic of the George W. Bush administration for enabling massive government growth, “fueled by neoconservative dreams of empire and which threatens the whole project of American liberty.”

How can the Right recover from the wreckage of the Bush years? In America’s Way Back, Devine makes “the case for 21st century ‘fusionism’” — a reinvigoration of the Cold War–era conservative-libertarian alliance that employed “libertarian means for traditionalist ends.”

He can expect some friendly pushback from our commentator, Reason magazine editor Matt Welch, a fusionism skeptic who has (with Reason’s Nick Gillespie) argued that traditional political groupings are fast becoming moribund, and the rise of political “independents (especially of the libertarian flavor) hint strongly that another form—something unpredictable, fantastical, liberating—is gathering to take their place.”

I’ll be moderating what promises to a lively discussion on libertarianism, conservatism, and the future of the Right. Register now!

The Discourse Gap

Earlier this week, Paul Krugman wrote of a “wonk gap” between Republicans and “conservative ‘experts’” and their political and philosophical counterparts.

According to Krugman, “the G.O.P. [has a] near-complete lack of expertise on anything substantive.” Or, put in its elementary school playground formulation, he says, “You guys are just stupid.”

Of course, Krugman is wrong. Many conservative thinkers (and thinkers from other political viewpoints) have many substantive and important arguments for their views. Krugman and others who dismiss those ideas out-of-hand either don’t really understand them or else are trying to ignore them. Narrow minds, alas, are hard to penetrate.

It’s thus tempting to dismiss the column as just Krugman being Krugman. But the column does (unwittingly) illustrate a gap that is real, important, and truly worrisome: the gap in thoughtful discourse between different viewpoints in American politics. Discourse is vital both because it forces those viewpoints to sharpen their better arguments while discarding their weaker ones, and because it moves policymakers and the public toward better decisions. However, instead of seriously and thoughtfully engaging in such conversation, too many politicians and commentators give serious attention only to ideas and arguments in line with their own views.

Sadly, Krugman occupies one of the most echo-ey of those chambers, routinely misunderstanding (and then lampooning) viewpoints at odds with his own. For some examples, see this by Tyler Cowen, or these posts by Alan Reynolds.

Indeed, if Krugman followed thoughtful policy discourse, he wouldn’t have buttressed his “wonk gap” column with three highly dubious arguments:

Krugman, of course, isn’t the only commentator or politician to shelter in an echo chamber. It’s too easy to become a public-policy Stuart Smalley, believing, “My ideas are good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like them (and my opponents are just stupid).” But that deprives America of important political considerations and better public policies. And that truly is stupid.

C/P at MPPI Policy Blog

Turning New York City into Detroit?

I recently speculated whether Detroit’s fiscal problems should be a warning sign for the crowd in Washington.

The answer, of course, is yes, though it’s not a perfect analogy. The federal government is in deep trouble because of unsustainable entitlement programs while Detroit got in trouble because of a combination of too much compensation for bureaucrats and too many taxpayers escaping the city.

A better analogy might be to compare Detroit to other local governments. Some large cities in California already have declared bankruptcy, for instance, and you can find the same pattern of overcompensated bureaucrats and escaping taxpayers.

And the same thing may happen to New York City if the next mayor is successful in pushing for more class-warfare tax policy. Here are some excerpts from an excellent New York Post column by Nicole Gelinas:

Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio…thinks New York can hike taxes on the rich and not suffer… De Blasio’s scheme is this: Hike income taxes by 13.8 percent on New Yorkers making above half a million dollars annually….After five years, de Blasio would let this tax surcharge lapse, and — he says — find another way to pay.

But there’s a big problem with de Blasio’s plan. Rich people are not fatted calves meekly awaiting slaughter.

In 2009, the top 1 percent of taxpayers (the 34,598 households making above $493,439 annually) paid 43.2 percent of city income taxes (they made 33.9 percent of income), according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. Each of these families paid an average $75,477. No, most people won’t up and leave (though if 20 percent did, they’d leave New York with less money than before the tax hike). But they can rearrange their incomes. Unlike most of us, folks making, say, $10 million have considerable control over how and when they get paid. That’s because much of their money comes from cashing out a partnership, or selling stock or a house or a painting. To avoid a tax hike, it’s easy enough for them to pay themselves earlier by selling their stuff earlier — before the tax hike. The city made $800 million in extra taxes last year because rich people sold their stuff before President Obama increased investment taxes in December. Or, people can pay themselves later — after the five years’ worth of higher taxes are up.

Gelinas makes some very important points. She warns that the city would have less money if just 20 percent of rich people escaped. She doesn’t think that will happen, but she does explain that rich people can stay but take some simple steps to reduce their taxable income.