Topic: Political Philosophy

What Does It Mean If the Marxists Are Excited about an Obama Administration?

More from our Marxist friend Norman Markowitz, contributing editor of PoliticalAffairs.net (motto: “Marxist Thought Online”):

Obama certainly has a mandate, and it is a mandate for change. Obama’s slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” was reminiscent of slogans like the “New Deal” of Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign and the “Great Society” banner under which Johnson won in 1964. In the latter cases, those slogans translated into the major policy domestic agendas of those administrations.

For the people who elected Obama and the increased Democratic majority, “change we can believe in”… is about creating a national public health care program more than 50 years after it was established in other major industrial nations … [a] “single payer” national health system – known as “socialized medicine” in the rest of the developed world …

The right-wing propaganda machine will scream socialism, and that is also a good thing. Because the more socialism comes to be identified with real policies that raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life for the working class and the whole people, the more socialism will be looked at seriously. A stronger left that follows the tradition of the Communist Party in its unbreakable commitment to a socialist future and to educating people about the value and necessity of socialist policies in the present could follow.

It would be a stretch to say that this guy speaks for president-elect Barack Obama, or anyone who voted for Obama.

But it is interesting how excited the Marxists are about Obama’s presidency. In particular, his health-care plan.

Simon? Yes. Garfunkel? Hmm…

The good people of Austin, Texas, have grown weary of their reputation as the Live Music Capital of the World. How else to explain the city government’s creation of a Live Music Task Force

Austin became a live-music hot spot without a government task force. Any bets on how long live music will survive now that they’ve got one?

“But wait,” you might object, “how would the task force destroy something that it exists to promote?”

I’m sure the Task Force is working on many fronts. But one obvious strategy might be to have the government decide who is a “musician” and who is not. You know, for the purpose of doling out government health benefit to musicians. Hey, if the government’s going to be passing out benefits, it has to decide who makes the cut.

And the Task Force will face some tough decisions. Right now, musicians:

Must provide 3 references who will be contacted to corroborate that applicant is a working musician (examples: club owners, booking agents, record labels, etc.)

Sounds reasonable. But is that fair to this guy just because he can’t get a gig?

Rhymin’ Simon should meet anyone’s definition. But what about GarfunkelJohn, Paul, George … yes, yes, yes. But Ringo?? The Blue Öyster Cult is a no-brainer. But what about this guy:

Does the government have any business deciding who is a musician? Even if it did, would we want it to? Is that really going to improve live music in Austin? Or the quality of health care?

Does it even occur to anyone to ask these questions?

Switching Sides?

Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy (via the New York Times) cynically predicts some reversals of position by both Democrats and Republicans in the coming months:

1) Republicans Must Now Oppose Executive Power; Democrats Must Be In Favor Of It. In the last few years, Republicans have been the defenders of executive power: A muscular executive has been needed to fight the war on terror. On the other hand, Democrats have opposed a strong executive on the ground that it threatens the rule of law. Please note that these arguments must now switch. Republicans must now talk of the dangers of executive power; Democrats must now speak of how a strong and agile executive branch is necessary to a modern democracy.

2) Republicans Must Now Oppose Judicial Confirmations; Democrats Must Be In Favor. In the last few years, Republicans wanted an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees; one of their leading blogs on the judicial confirmations was ConfirmThem.com. On the other hand, Democrats focused on the importance of carefully evaluating judicial candidates. Please note that these arguments must now switch, too. Republicans should now visit RejectThem.com (still an available domain name, btw — won’t be for long!), and Democrats should emphasize the need for a quick up or down vote.

3) Republicans Must Now Favor Legislative Oversight; Democrats Must Now Oppose It. You get the point by now. Yup, everyone has to switch sides on this one, too. If we all stick to the script, in 6 months the old arguments of the Bush era will be long forgotten. (Oh, and extra credit to those who charge the other side with hypocrisy for changing sides without noting that they have changed sides, too.)

Well, he might be right. And we may also see Republicans once again waxing eloquent about how the filibuster protects minority rights and Democrats railing against its obstructionism. But I’ll note that here at the Cato Institute we try to be nonpartisan. I think we always favor due consideration of judicial nominations, followed by confirmation of those who properly understand the Constitution and its limits on power. We’ve criticized President Clinton’s abuse of executive power and President Bush’s — and the general problem. We’ve called for congressional oversight when Republicans were in the White House and when Democrats were.

We hope that the new president and the 111th Congress will restore civil liberties and checks and balances. If they don’t, Cato scholars will point that out.

Pay No Attention to the Man behind the Curtain

I’m sorry, but this just makes me ill. In a post he actually titled “The Magic Ballot,” Arjun Appadurai writes:

The word is MAGIC. On the night of November 4, it felt as if something magical had happened, and perhaps there were others, like me, who used that word. But it is not the biggest word in current public use and I wish it were more fully available to us now.

We’ve chosen someone to work for us. We’ve hired him. For a job. We did it through the (yes, rather nifty) process of democracy. And… That. Is. All. Barack Obama is an employee. He’s not a magician. We can fire him later if we like, and he’s not going to retaliate by turning us all into toads or shooting lighting bolts out of his eyes.

I know that many believe that priests can perform miracles, at least of certain kinds, but Obama isn’t a priest. Tuesday night did not and could not make him one. It’s superstitious, impious, or both, to think that something as common as a democratic election could endow anyone with magical powers.

I regret that we are forced to catch the special aura of this election without a deep and serious space for the idea of magic, magic as it used to be. It would help us fill this rhetorical void. It would let us name the un-nameable and it would let us enjoy our means even without certainty about our ends. It would let us enjoy this week without dragging it immediately into boring predictions about what Nancy Pelosi will do, about how many huge headaches Obama will face, about how heavy the coming storm will be, and how fragile our collective sources. We have hardly crowned Obama and we have promptly begun to mourn for him, as if he is has already been vanquished by his foes.

Crowned??? Sir, this is a Lockean republic, not a New-Age theocracy.

But wait, it gets worse:

Magic, anthropologists have always known, is about what people throughout the world do when faced with uncertainty, catastrophic damage, injustice, illness, suffering or harm, while ritual (also magical in its logic) is performed to forestall or prevent these very things. Magic is not about deficient logic, childish mental mistakes, clever priestly illusions or other mistaken technologies. It is the universal feeling that what we see and feel exceeds our knowledge, our understanding and our control. Can we deny that the infusion of 700 billion dollars into our banks is a magical act designed to make our banks rain credit again? Has it worked yet? Are we discarding our belief in banks and credit as a result? Magic is a method for deploying modest technical means to address outsize ethical challenges. Human beings have always done this and always will. We might as well have a grown-up word for this set of practices.

If we really just spent $700 billion on magic, then I want my money back. There’s probably a decent First Amendment challenge in there somewhere, wouldn’t you think?

Some of us, when faced with “uncertainty, catastrophic damage, injustice, illness, suffering or harm” do not resort to magic. We turn to reason, hard work, rectitude, compassion, courage, and thrift. We also note that the government so often tends to interfere with all of these things.

But I guess we don’t have to bother with any of that anymore: The Great Barack is going to save us — magically — from all kinds of disasters!

So the election of Barack [sic]… is also magical in a much more serious way. It has been performed and produced by voting citizens at a moment when America and the world face risks of an enormous order. We have named these risks frequently in the media and the public sphere in the last few weeks: risks of total financial meltdown, of global warm-up, of war without end and terror without faces and sources. And our existing tools for risk management have failed miserably. Should we be surprised that the American electorate has rediscovered magic without knowing it?

Surprised? If you’re right, we should be very, very worried. And no, my objection is neither partisan nor personal. If McCain had won, I’d have made a post mocking the near-religious qualities his followers had invested in him, too.

Whither Fusionism?

One of the victims of the Bush presidency, along with limited government and the Republican Party, has been “fusionism,” the idea that conservatives and libertarians ought to come together to oppose the forces of socialism (and The Left generally).  Indeed, this Tuesday’s election probably saw the highest-ever percentage of libertarians – depending on how you count them – vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (at least in the modern era, with the possible exception of the Nixon years).  This despite that Democratic candidate being commonly seen as the most statist major-party candidate in history.

Cato adjunct scholar Ilya Somin who blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy and in his day job is a law professor at George Mason (currently visiting at Penn) – Ilya being a popular name among libertarian legal community – today puts up a smart post on the state of the erstwhile libertarian-conservative.  Here’s a snippet:

Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced “the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration.” Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term. 

Indeed, if conservatives choose some version of the Huckabee-Palin route, fusionism is dead – and so, might I add presumptuously, is the Republican Party.  That just ain’t where the majority of the nation is, or where it’s heading (though, as Ilya says, that direction may be politically advantageous in certain parts of the country under certain circumstances).

But this type of discussion may be beside the point; libertarian-conservative (in the sense of socially conservative, economically squishy) fusionism may have run its course, a relic of the Cold War.  The new fusionism may well be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant (not necessarily liberal, just not wanting government to do anything about the way people live their private lives), including folks who might call themselves conservative cosmopolitans, crunchy cons, South Park conservatives, or indeed libertarians.  Or they might eschew labels altogether but are sick of the rot coming from (or to) Washington.  In other words: Purple America,

Cato Today

Op-Ed: “Will the GOP Learn from This?” by Michael Tanner in the Orange County Register

As it emerges from the electoral rubble, the Republican Party must decide what it actually believes in before beginning rebuilding its battered fortune.

Michael Tanner on the election landslide

Republicans now have two more years in the wilderness to decide whether or not they actually stand for limited government and individual liberty. One wonders, whether they will hear the message.

Article: “Advice to President-elect Obama,” by Will Wilkinson in Marketplace

Here’s my advice: First, you’ve got to get spending under control….Second, drop the xenophobic claptrap….Third, get real on the ‘new energy economy.’

Op-Ed: “Is It Constitutional?” by Richard Rahn in the Washington Times

Which section of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to bail out banks? If you don’t know, it could be because no constitutional authority exists for such an action. It is all too common for both Congress and the executive branch to ignore that the Constitution limits what they can and cannot do.

Op-Ed: “US Urged to Overhaul Nuclear Arsenal,” by David Isenberg in the Asia Times

The handling of US nuclear weapons and policy were recently center-stage due to two different events. First was the release on October 24 of a report billed as a nuclear weapons roadmap for the future by the US Air Force. Titled “Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise”, it called for the establishment of a global strike command and a headquarters for air force staff to handle nuclear assets.