Freedom Democrats - Online community for Libertarian Democrats

"White Working Class"

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:43:37 -0700

I have a question about this whole idea of a "white working class" that operates as a generally monolithic block of voters in politics. It used to be that the "white working class" was essentially the same as the large number of white workers in manual or blue collar manufacturing jobs. But manufacturing as a segment of the labor force is on the decline, blame globalization and technological development. Today, your typical low-income white worker is in a bottom of the ladder white collar job or some other segment of the service industry. And the blue collar jobs that remain in America are more likely to be skilled, making them less likely to stack up on the bottom of the income ladder.

So we essentially have two white working classes. One is generally skilled and blue collar. Even if they aren't high-tech, they are skilled artisans who use ingenuity and creativity to fix problems and solve problems. They are just as valid members of the "Creative Class" as someone in computer graphics. But the other segment of the white working class is unskilled and stuck in low-level white collar jobs produced by the rise of a service industry linked to the creative economy.

The differences between these two groups are clear and many. For example, the unskilled white collar workings are directly competing in a global economy to the extent that their jobs can be outsourced or replaced by immigrant labor (legal or illegal). Skilled blue collar workers are more immune to such economic factors.

Anarchy in the LP!

Fri, 16 May 2008 06:13:43 -0700

Okay, I had previously indicated that I would stay out of the Radical v Reform LP debate, posting that, by definition, a political party has to make compromises and forge coalitions. But observing the LP candidates now falling over each other issuing statements either condemning anarchism or rebutting charges that they are anarchists has led me to reconsider. Less Antman posted an article Monday on LRC that addressed this issue, proclaiming The Dallas Accord is Dead. Antman was motivated by Wayne Allen Root invoking the Dallas Accord in his criticism of Mart Ruwart's anarchist views and LP Presidential candidate Christine Smith going on a radio talk show and essentially calling for a purge of anarchists from the LP. Smith was particularly vile in her comments, quoting Ayn Rand in calling anarchists "collectivist, anti-intellectual scum." Her tirade went so far as to proclaim anarchism was a collectivist virus within the LP.

I'm sad to see we've got enough of these people in the LP, they are trying to control it, they are trying to get a presidential candidate...

Well, I'm sad to see that we have a dolt like Christine Smith who is able to parade around passing herself off as an authoritative adjudicator of libertarianism. I would be remiss not to point out to Christine Smith that Ayn Rand virtually condemned everyone, with the exception of GOP presidential candidates, of Objectivist heresy. Indeed Rand's own opinion of the Libertarian Party fell somewhere between her opinion of anarchists and George McGovern.

This whole business started when it became apparent that late-entry Mary Ruwart, a self-admitted Rothbardian Anarchist, had a shot at winning the LP nomination. Ruwart was a late entry because she had been volunteering for the Ron Paul campaign. Indeed, both Ruwart and her husband are long-time Paul activists. Ron Paul had returned the favor by previously recommending Ruwart, a Phd biochemist, for the post of FDA commissioner to President Bush.

Ruwart's convention strategy is going to rely heavily on making the case that she is best poised, both from her past activist history and from her own Rothbardian leanings, to capture and galvanize the Ron Paul Vote. However, she is facing a more sophisticated candidate pool this go around that certainly is not above engaging in opposition research to dredge up old book passages to discredit her. And, without doubt, the attacks Ruwart has had to endure illustrates the perils of anarchists trying to run for political office. Market anarchist theory of law, security, and justice doesn't translate very well into political campaigns or the political arena. Ambitious political opponents will eat it alive. As with love and war, there is nothing fair about politics. Unlike Ruwart, Ron Paul--Ruwart's mentor-- leaves it up to the subjective onlooker whether in his heart of hearts he is actually a Misean Statist or a Rothbardian Anarchist. Paul, I suppose, is smart enough as a politician not to really address that distinction in writing.

This whole dust up only exemplifies a larger contextual question of whether a diverse political and moral philosophy, which is what libertarianism really is, should be organized into a political party to begin with. The fact is that libertarianism cuts a wide ideological swath and encompasses a diverse set of competing schools of historical thought. It is true that NAP can be used as a sort of unifying principle in theory, but in practical application, all kind of cracks and fissures begin to manifest themselves.

For example, Statist-Libertarians view the State as a necessary monopoly provider of retaliatory force to enforce NAP violations against person or property and to provide a small set of non-excludable public goods, such as a national defense. However, Anarcho-Libertarians counter that the State, by nature, is a Redistributionist Coalition, and will, by logical necessity, expand in scope and size. This is the De Jasay argument reached from a rational choice methodology. The same conclusion can be reached however from a more dialectical Libertarian Class Theory perspective as well. Therefore the State necessarily is a net violator of NAP, it's violations far outweighing it's enforcements. Since the behavior of the State can be predicted theoretically and verified empirically without fail, this is a scientific conclusion. Anarcho-Libertarians make the charge that Statist-Libertarians suffer from the Ought-Is fallacy when it comes to the State. Statist-Libertarians will usually attempt to counter the anarchist framework for NAP argument typically using a combination of logical fallacies, such as Burden of Proof, Appeal to Fear, and Appeal to Common Practice. Finally, Statist-Libertarians may attempt to escape their dilemma by advocating a principle of secession, but, as Less Antman has pointed out, this reduces to a de facto anarchist position.

It is precisely because of the type of argument that I made above that a truce was made between the Anarcho-Libertarians and the Statist-Libertarians back in the 70s. Otherwise, the LP would just reduce to a debating society. However, the "truce" hardly prevented the Rothbard/Cato divorce from eventually leading to both coalitions abandoning the LP. The Catoites walked out in 1983. The Rothbardians abandoned the LP after Ron Paul's run in 1988, concluding that the LP was "too libertine." In both instances, I'm not necessarily referring to the rank and file but to the intellectual vanguards.

I think it's safe to say since the 90s the anarchist membership in the LP has steadily dwindled to where it's at an all-time low now. It's readily apparent that the LP continues to move in a direction that values election success and results over the educational role as "The Party of Principle." That's all well and good, but to the extent that the Party emasculates it's platform in an attempt to achieve marginally better electoral results, it will actually be sowing the seeds of it's own demise. Abandoning principle, purging radicals and anarchists, will only divorce the LP from the greater libertarian movement. The first time I hear some LP candidate utter the slogan "Compassionate Libertarianism," that will be the cue to abandon the LP ship. The real impediment to electoral success is our plurality voting systems and the electoral college, which serves to enforce a 2 party system. Rather than eviscerating the platform, the LP will be better served by aggressively partnering with the likes of the Green Party to work toward voting reform.

Obama and the Drug War, Part II

Thu, 15 May 2008 18:01:47 -0700

He will call off the Federal Dogs when it comes to Medical Marijuana.

p0wned!

Thu, 15 May 2008 17:09:20 -0700

The reason that the GOP Dog Food needs to be removed from the shelves is because it's been marinated in hot air for the last 8 years. This is comedic gold...

Bob Barr on California Supreme Court Ruling

Thu, 15 May 2008 16:47:45 -0700

Kudos to former Congressman Barr for defending the ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down their ban on same-sex marriages.

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

Obama's Internet Revolution

Thu, 15 May 2008 10:33:24 -0700

Marc Ambinder provides a good overview of the Internet revolution that Barack Obama will bring to the White House:

What Obama seems to promise is, at its outer limits, a participatory democracy in which the opportunities for participation have been radically expanded. He proposes creating a public, Google-like database of every federal dollar spent. He aims to post every piece of non-emergency legislation online for five days before he signs it so that Americans can comment. A White House blog—also with comments—would be a near certainty. Overseeing this new apparatus would be a chief technology officer.

Wisconsin's Democratic Governor Defunds REAL ID

Thu, 15 May 2008 10:12:46 -0700

Kudos to Governor Doyle of Wisconsin:

WisPolitics.com reports that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) plans to take more than $20 million out of the state’s REAL ID account and transfer it into the state’s general fund.

Hat tip to Cato at Liberty.

Another One Bites The Dust

Wed, 14 May 2008 06:26:35 -0700

The Republican party is dealt their third defeat in a special election this year. Democrat Travis Childers joins Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux as a newly elected member of Congress and members of a small but growing number of Democrats elected by the early edge of the 2008 wave. There may be one more special election up in New York before November, another chance for the Democrats to show momentum heading into the fall. Things are not good in GOP land:

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), issued a somber and self-reflective statement following the loss, saying Republicans were “disappointed” and that they need to prepare to run against Democrats campaigning as conservatives.

“Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy” in Louisiana and Mississippi “and it should be a concern to all Republicans,” Cole said.

Cole added that “the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our presidential nominee, but time is short.”

Hopeful Sign for Federalism

Tue, 13 May 2008 17:45:31 -0700

From David Sirota, an interesting poll of the voters of Wisconsin:

Who do you think would do a better job reforming the health care system, Wisconsin and the other states, or the federal government?

Wisconsin & Other States: 68%
Federal Government: 22%
Both Equally: 2%
Neither: 3%
Don't Know: 4%
Refused: <1%

Sirota draws from this hope for progressive reform at the state level that would work to push the envelope at the national state over time. Even though I disagree with his specific agenda, I agree with his conclusion about the importance of state politics:

The organization has had to fight an uphill battle not just against conservatives and the health care industry, but also against a conventional wisdom among progressive donors, Beltway elites, and even some blogospheric voices who are so enamored with the Washington game that they cannot see what the Right long ago figured out: namely, that states are often where the real action is, because Washington is rigged to prevent change. Clearly, the public is way ahead of the Washington-centric conventional wisdom - likely because the public lives out here in the real world, far away from the D.C. echo chamber that tells everyone in D.C. that what they are doing is more important than what anyone else is doing.

Progressive Blogs as Liberal Gatekeepers

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:43:00 -0700

This post is a "sibling" post to my post on political gatekeepers at The Art of the Possible. Please check it out as well, although the theme is the same the points are different.

For reasons behind my full understanding, I recently stumbled on the ideas of Alexander Bard and Jan Soderqvist as explained in their book "Netocracy." I find it interesting as a way of thinking about the future, I could see ways in which libertarian/agorist class theory could apply to it. For a summary, consider using this site. In the future, Bard and Soderqvist see the political economy structured around a "Netocracy."

In Bard and Soderqvist's model, the post-capitalist situation is an economic mode where the most valuable form of economic wealth is a network of good connections, through which flow information and influence. (Connections can be personal connections to people; or knowledge of resources such as good website)

Consider the role of those with connections when reading a piece of this National Journal article on the high hopes that Democrats have for three South Florida districts with Cuban-American Republican incumbents.

A more intriguing result was in Lincoln Diaz-Balart's 2006 race: Democrat Frank Gonzalez spent just $16,598 compared with the incumbent's $926,106, yet won 41 percent of the vote. Gonzalez actually defeated Diaz-Balart in less Hispanic Broward County, which accounts for a fraction of the district, but lost nearly 2-to-1 in Miami-Dade County.

"Lincoln won Hialeah 5-to-1," Martinez notes. "If it wasn't for Hialeah, Lincoln would have been in trouble.... Now he's going to have to compete with me, having been mayor of Hialeah for 24 years."

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland agrees that it was the Diaz-Balarts' relative weakness that caught his eye: "Clearly, the fact that in the past election that they didn't get these big votes was one factor."

Frank Gonzalez, a hard working candidate for public office, managed to hold Lincoln Diaz-Balart to less than 60% of the vote despite almost no help from the national party or any major Democratic infrastructure. And this weakness draws the attention of the national Democrats, who recruit Mayor Martinez to run against Congressman Diaz-Balart. And where does this leave Frank Gonzalez? Running as a third party candidate again, just like in 2004.

I firmly believe that Frank Gonzalez could have done significantly better in 2006 if he had the resources. He didn't, Mayor Martinez will. At a time in which the national liberal blogosphere was picking out long shot candidates in Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, California, and elsewhere (and some successfully), Gonzalez was passed over because of his integrity and honesty of views . . . in other words, he wouldn't back away from being a libertarian. As much as I support the Democratic Party as a big tent, liberal gatekeepers will favor liberal candidates. For libertarian candidates to be successful, we're going to need libertarian gatekeepers.

General Election, Take One

Mon, 12 May 2008 08:26:25 -0700

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic has put together the first found of predictions for the general election between John McCain and Barack Obama.

McCain's base states + his leaners: 245 electoral votes.
Obama's base states + his leaners: 221 electoral votes.

McCain's base states -- 175 electoral votes.

Texas (34), West Virginia (5), Georgia (15), South Carolina (8), Kentucky (8), Tennessee (11), Alabama (9), Mississippi (6), Louisiana (9), Arkansas (6), Wyoming (3), Idaho (4), Utah (5), Arizona (10), Alaska (3), Oklahoma (7), Kansas (6), Nebraska (5), South Dakota (3), North Dakota (3), North Carolina (15)

Tilt McCain states -- 70 electoral votes.

Indiana (11) -- competitive House and GOV races; Obama's college force multiplier; state borders IL
Virginia (13) -- polling shows McCain with lead; McCain will over performing in Tidewater; Obama will overperform in NoVA. Probably will be tossup by the summer as Mark Warner's popularity will stoke Dem enthusiasm.
Missouri (11) -- lack of McCain enthusiasm in rural (Huckabee) areas; state borders IL; Obama overperformed among suburban whites and inner city African Americans in primary.
Montana (3) -- Schweitzer's army and state legislature trending Democratic; probably safe McCain by November.
Florida (27) -- McCain's very popular in South Florida and North Florida; whether Florida is competitive depends a lot on his appeal to Latinos and his overperforming with Jewish voters
Nevada (5) -- Unusual for Latino voters to be up for grabs, although state has more Dem energy than GOP energy (and plenty of infighting on both sides.)

Tossups: Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), Ohio (20), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9) -- 72 electoral votes.

Obama's base states -- 172 electoral votes --

Washington, D.C. (3), Maryland (10), California (55), New York (31), Vermont (3), Massachusetts (12), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Rhode Island (4), Illinois (21), Hawaii (4), New Jersey (15), Maine (4)

Tilt Obama States -- 49 electoral votes

New Hampshire (4) -- everything trending Dem, including independents. If McCain's maverick image endures, NH becomes an easy tossup.
Michigan (17) -- An economically depressed Dem union state with an active GOP base and that primary problem;
Minnesota (10) -- If Pawlenty is McCain's veep the state is marginally more in play; the GOP gets the force multiplier of the convention. Else, the state would be safe Obama.
Washington (11) -- McCain campaign wants to contend here
Oregon (7) -- McCain campaign wants to contend here

Overall, a good set of predictions. I'm starting to become more pessimistic about Obama's chance at winning Virginia, but I still think he has the possibility to put some states in play that are not standard swing states.

USA Today: Obama Promises to Escalate the Drug War?

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:29:39 -0700

H/T to Radley Balko

Depressing. In an interview with USA Today, Barack Obama essentially promises not only to use the presidency as a bully pulpit to further promote the Drug War, but vows to pour more money into enforcement as well.

As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs.

The USA Today article posed the questions of Title IX and performance enhancement drugs(PEDs) to all 3 candidates and all 3 gave essentially the same answer. This is not "Change we can believe in" but "Same old, same old." I don't care about the Title IX aspect of the article, but Obama's promise to vigorously expand the Drug War into PEDs only promises to unleash the DEA on 15 million Americans who currently use PEDs of some sort. Over at The Art of The Possible, the conceptual theme is a a liberal-libertarian alliance. However, at some point, the liberals have to start living up to their side of the bargain. I'm willing to compromise on economic issues, but not on civil liberty issues. Libertarian principles of the right to self-medicate are beside the point here; there is all the evidence in the world to construct an "a posteriori" argument that any reform on the civil liberties front absolutely requires reform of our Drug Laws. Obama's capitulation on this issue (wasn't "The Wire" supposed be his favorite TV Show?) makes him nothing more than an empty suit on the civil liberties front.

The Cult of the Imperial Presidency

Fri, 09 May 2008 18:48:03 -0700

In the latest feature article at Reason (not online yet), Gene Healy looks at the growth of the all powerful, all knowing, all affecting, all healing, all preaching, all nourishing president.

Under the headline on page 21 reads the following:

Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.

Indeed. No other political office has come to mean so much to so many people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Nonetheless, says Healy:

The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise....is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as a national guardian and a spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous that it virtually goes unnoticed.It's difficult for 21st century Americans to imagine things any other way....Americans appear deeply ambivalent about results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given a post that started out so humble.

After recalling some drab and tired quotes and ideas about separation of powers, humility and caution from yesteryear by the likes of Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton and John Jay, Healy rightly traces the roots of this shift chief officer of the executive branch to larger-than-life omnipotent, omnipresent overlord to the Progressive era....the period of backlash after the massive societal shifts...good, bad and yet to be fully understood (at the time)...of the Industrial Revolution. The "Progressives" were, according to a 2003 book, The Presidency and Political Science, "the nearest to presidential absolutists of any theorists or practitioners of the presidency". A leading light of this era was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressive era journalist and founder of the The New Republic, Herbert Croly ominously described Teddy as "a sledgehammer in the cause national righteousness". His relative popularity with liberals and conservatives speaks volumes on how influential Teddy and this era was in our modern political thought.

Indeed, the traces of Obama's hope, hosanna and Yes we CAN! and McCain's push to serve a cause "greater than self-interest" and promises of national redemption, greatness and defeat to all enemies of the state, within and without, can trace their roots back to Teddy's original bully pulpit at the 1912 Progressive Party Convention when he cried:

"To you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our Nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of mankind, I say in closing...WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!".

Sheesh. Get a grip, Teddy.

Two world wars and a depression (Fed created in 1913) were more than enough to solidify the new found all-powerful office of President of the United States of America. And rather than gulp with pause and reflexion on the God-like figure we've created, Americans seem ever more insistent and impassioned in capturing the prize for themselves via their party leader in the hopes of having all their dreams for a better world, a brighter tomorrow and salvation and redemption for all mankind...and the children...come true.

Pardon my over-the-toppiness. I just caught up in the moment. ;)

Kevin Carson's review of "Mind and the Market"

Thu, 08 May 2008 20:06:16 -0700

Kevin reviews a book I confess I have not read, The Mind and the Market by Michael Shermer. See interviewed at Reason TV if you are so inclined.

BTW, it is not my intention to defend Shermer here and I don't want to. Shermer's book is actually irrelevant here. I actually agree with many of Carson's criticisms...but not all. And therein lies the basis for this post.

Anyway, as a periodic reader of Kevin's stuff, I have always found his views insightful, interesting and worth pondering. In general, I'm usually in agreement with much of what he says and most certainly with the spirit of what he says. And I probably agree a lot more than with him than may lead on in the rest of this post.

Without getting in too deep, there are some fundamental tenets to his views that I simply find puzzling and almost "incongruent" with libertarianism...not vulgar libertarianism or right libertarianism (his pet peeve...which I also think he defines to widely at times)...but just basic general libertarianism 101 and free markets in realistic and practical setting that takes everyday human action into account.

First of all, he once again shows his contempt for "the corporation" as legal structure...I assume because it's a creation of the state and therefore a validation of the state's unfounded legitimacy in a true free market? If so, fair enough. Personally, I'm indifferent to the legal structure of a corporation. Perhaps the implications of even saying this shows a fundamental rift in our views because my view accepts (or at least tolerates as acceptable) the legitimacy of the state as an enforcer/arbiter of law and property issues. I'm not sure on this for Carson.

Beyond that, what I find puzzling is how any defense of capitalism that has corporations is instantly "vulgar" or necessarily a defense of crony capitalism.

Having said that, I agree whole-heartedly with his critiques of privilege, entrenched interests, subsidies and all that state coddling and interference that drives most any libertarian mad...whether right, left, "vulgar" or what have you.

I'll stop there for now. Any thoughts?

But it would seem that in Carson's view, such views are mutually exclusive.

Republicans for price controls

Thu, 08 May 2008 16:09:19 -0700

Republicans are jumping on board the "gas tax holiday" train, and I really hope that Democrats will clobber them on this issue before the summer passes and it becomes irrelevant.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he's supporting a bill by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., to suspend the gasoline tax this summer.
"The common sense plan unveiled today by Rep. Ryan helps bring down gas prices by eliminating the federal gas tax during the summer months so American families can take their summer vacations with less strain on their budgets," Boehner said in a statement Thursday.
Boehner's probably heard that economists don't think it'll amount to much, and he may not put much stock in their pronouncements.

I can think of two motivations behind this temporary suspection of the gasoline tax: either to bring down prices at the pump, or to hand billions of dollars to the gasoline industry.

Economists have bashed this idea, in large part because its duration is too short for it to stimulate an increase in gasoline supply, meaning that consumer prices will not come down as a result of the tax holiday. This would lead us to believe that this proposal is intended as a give-away to the gasoline industry, but Hillary provides an alternative. She insists that is the President were willing to use all of the powers at his disposal, then he/she could force prices to come down over the summer. Is she referring to price controls?

If a politician is proposing that they can lower gasoline prices in a time-frame as near as this summer, then we basically have to conclude that they are proposing price controls. Since the Republicans are championing these price controls, we have to assume that they expect Americans to behave like Iranians, Nigerians, or the French -- who protest/riot whenever the prices of basic commodities rise.

I had always felt comfortable that Americans were exceptional in having a slightly more sophisticated view of economics, where we allowed the markets to handle economic details (like setting commodity prices) while politics focused on the big picture issues (like poverty). This is part of why I consider Obama's emphasis on a middle-class tax cut to be far superior to Clinton's and the Republican's emphasis on the price of gasoline.

As much as the Republicans thrive on national chauvinism, they really go out of their way to undermine America's unique heritage and turn us into just another old-world nation (with a national language, a national religion, and government-controlled commodity prices).