Category: Politics

Sixteen years teaches many lessons.

If I suddenly became my 19-year-old self from 1992 again, I’d be ecstatic that Senator Barack Obama is now the Democratic nominee for president. The message of hope change would resonate, and I’d be ready to cast my ballot in his favor. The idea of adapting to changing realities and discarded discredited ideas would appeal to me. My actual 19-year-old self from 1992 supported Jerry Brown (ah, the joy of idealism), but once Bill Clinton became the nominee, it was easy to rally behind him. Sen. Obama is no different.

My almost-35-year-old self in 2008 knows better. I’ve come to loathe Bill Clinton. He was, is, and always will be nothing more than a politician. He has very little redeemable character that he’s shown to the public. After sixteen years, I suspect that’s solely because there’s nothing redeemable to show. It doesn’t matter. I’m no longer interested in the freak show spectacle necessary to find out. I’ve become more cynical aware.

I won’t pretend that, should he win the presidency, Sen. Obama will eventually devolve into the mess that is Bill Clinton. I think Sen. Obama is little more than a politician, but Bill Clinton is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, I hope. Still, Sen. Obama is not a political messiah. I doubt he is a statesman-incarnation of the founding fathers. Leadership is advocating for facts. Sen. Obama demonstrated earlier this year that rhetoric allegedly necessary to win in an election about change and truth is not beyond his arsenal. I don’t respect that. If he’s disappointing my reasonable expectations now, I can’t act as though he’s qualified to be president. He will disappoint if/when he’s president. Even the parts of that that are preferable also happen to be inevitable. Things are inevitably going to change stay the same.

In his defense, I think Sen. Obama is less unqualified to be president than Senator John McCain. If I planned to vote for one of these two men, it would be Sen. Obama. I hope he wins. But it won’t make a difference. Our national two-party partisan psychodrama isn’t going anywhere. I will retract if I’m wrong, but Senator Obama will play a part in that over the next 4, 8, or more years.

John McCain endorses majoritarianism over individual rights.

From John McCain’s speech to the NRA:

Real activists seek to make their case democratically — to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause. Such people throughout our history have often shown great idealism and done great good. By contrast, activist lawyers and activist judges follow a different method. They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes, and all of that. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.

Is there an upper bound on how many individuals may have their rights violated before we conclude a constitutional solution is better than a democratic solution? If so, what’s the number? Is there a distinction marking which rights are sacred and which may be violated at will by a majority? Is there any reservation worth considering to limit this complete trust in The People that might acknowledge those hearts and minds that are either incapable or unwilling of being won?

Like every politician, John McCain is a propagandist unworthy of being in a position of leadership. He will not behave as a leader.

“I don’t even need to.”

I agree with almost everything in Andrew Sullivan’s entry titled “Obama’s Cowardice On Marriage”. Marriage equality is not a “far left” position when the core principle is considered. Any dismissal based on such a belief is at least partially an attempt to avoid uncomfortable analysis that might reach an “incorrect” outcome. I’m not as certain that it’s possible to minimize the federal implications of equal rights in favor of federalism given that our reality (14th Amendment, DOMA, etc.) is what it is. But Mr. Sullivan quickly gets to the point of why this “far left” charge is mistaken.

Still, I must qualify my agreement as incomplete because of this:

I should add that Obama’s position strikes me as transparently flimsy. … Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward.

His position is transparently flimsy because he’s a politician and marriage is a “tough” that politicians don’t want to address as long as there are voters who treat equal, individual liberty with the same approach used by children being asked to eat foods they don’t like. I’m loathe to compare politicians to parents because they already act that way too often, but it fits here. Proper parenting involves telling the child that she must eat broccoli instead of the candy she wants. The same applies here. Politicians Leaders must tell voters that some parts of American life are not up for a vote because they involve more fundamental principles of individual liberty. Majoritarianism on issues of how many rights society should respect for certain groups is the nutritional equivalent to liberty of serving only M&M’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

But is this really the only issue where Obama is “politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward”? He is a politician, right? As I see it, pandering on free trade to win votes is hardly a sign of bravery, especially when it’s apparent that the only way he will back his pandering with action is if he handcuffs himself too tightly into the position to weasel out of it later. He wouldn’t pander if he trusted voters to support the difficult truth rather than the pleasant lie. And I trust that he understands the value of free trade and the hollowness of his anti-NAFTA rhetoric in Ohio.

As I’ve said before, I think Senator Obama is the least bad of the three two options we now have in this race. That’s not enough for me to vote for him, but I can acknowledge that my analysis suggests his superiority over Senator McCain as the next president. Still, we shouldn’t pretend that Obama is anything more than a politician until he demonstrates a longer string of statesmanship when it’s politically inconvenient.

Note: The title reference is an inside joke.

Bob Barr on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism

Here is Bob Barr’s statement on the California Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage:

“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.”

I’m not distracted by the potential implications of Barr’s view of federalism. This isn’t nearly enough to assume he holds the same flawed understanding of federalism espoused by Ron Paul, so I won’t assume that. But, if not for the second paragraph, I might consider such a possibility harder.

About that second paragraph… First, this from The Liberty Papers:

Constitutionally speaking, of course, Barr is entirely correct. If states like New York, New Jersey, and California want to legalize gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. The problem with the DOMA, though, is that it would seem to be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. With very limited exceptions, states are required to recognize the validly passed laws of their sister states, including laws about issues like marriage, adoption, and inheritance.
…

More importantly, though, Federalism simply doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant before the Civil War. The passage of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court case law that has grown from that Amendment, forever changed the relationship between the people, the states, and the Federal Government, and one of the things that changed is the idea that you don’t lose your rights as an American citizen simply because you move from one state to another.

That’s my understanding of this issue. Given how the full faith and credit issue with regard to DOMA is much stickier than just a “leave it to the states” position implies, Barr’s second paragraph is more an indication of how I should evaluate his approach to governing. Is he suggesting that we should behave as if simplicity is sufficient where facts demonstrate complexity? Is the stated intent behind legislation more important than the outcome of (poorly-worded) legislation? Does it matter if the negative consequences of simplifying the complex are predictable?

What Barr wanted to ensure with DOMA is worth discussing, but how he wanted to prevent states from “being forced” to accept valid laws of other states indicates a disagreeable approach to governing.

The Best Paragraph I’ll Read Today

Mark at Publius Endures provides the perfect reaction to yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court:

But first – after all the claims of the Religious Right over the last few years that same-sex marriage would destroy marriage as an institution, I’ll admit my commute home from work this evening was filled with fear. Would my wife and child still be home, waiting for me? Would my wife still be wearing her wedding ring? Would my wedding ring begin to fade away, as if it were a photograph in the hands of Marty McFly? By the time I was home, I was in a cold sweat. When I walked in the door, my worst fears appeared to be coming true – my wife wasn’t wearing her wedding ring! I immediately broke down into tears, begging Chri….err, the Ghost of Jerry Falwell for forgiveness. My confused wife then informed me that she had just taken her ring off to take a quick shower. In other words: California now allows same sex marriage, but my marriage didn’t fall apart! Shocking, I know. But also true.

That’s the reality when religious extremists offer their doomsday scenario for the private, religious institution of marriage if the public, civil institution becomes fully equal as an individual right rather than the silly notion of a collective right between only one man and one woman.

The rest of Mark’s analysis is good, too. For example, this is the second best paragraph I’ll read today:

As many libertarians are quick to point out democracy is a means, not an end in itself – democracy without freedom is meaningless; freedom without democracy is not (think Monaco here, for example). Moreover, we do not live in a pure democracy, but in a constitutional republic; a republic which, according to Madison’s Federalist #10 (you knew this was coming), is set up to prevent any one group from gaining dominance over any other group. The constitutional republic that is the United States, and which forms the template for many, even most, state constitutions (including, I think, California’s, despite its bad habit of direct democracy), is specifically intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority. In other words, our system of government is supposed to distrust mob rule every bit as much as it distrusts the rule of a king. Indeed, the authors of the Constitution viewed the legislature as the most dangerous branch of government precisely because it was susceptible to the tyranny of the majority.

Despite its bad habit of direct democracy, indeed. For further consideration, read Ed Brayton’s dismissal of the Family Research Council’s predictably unprincipled response.

**********

With the current discussion of judicial activism, the corresponding arguments about legislative activism (mostly noted by libertarians) are also relevant. Sometimes that activism takes the form of abdication of duty, to the point that it’s probably more appropriate to call it legislative “inactivism”.

I’m on record that legislatures must protect male minors to the same extent that female minors are currently (and correctly) protected from medically unnecessary genital surgery. (Most recently in the comments here.) Many disagree with that, basing their opinion on the traditional and cultural justifications for the non-medical circumcision of male children. Yet, it’s just as much a tyranny of the majority when a legislature fails to act in defense of rights¹. When it stands idly by while rights are violated because the violation is based on tradition, the legislature allows the perceived majority opinion to justify inaction. Just as prohibition based on mob rule may be improper, permission based on mob rule may be improper. The legislature’s approach must be based on first principles of individual rights. Majority opinion does not supersede the rights of the minority, even if that minority is a lone individual.

¹ The Congress intentionally ignored basic human rights principles by invoking a bizarre mental jujitsu to permit continued male genital mutilation during debate on the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1995. I’m working on a separate entry on this. I’ll update this with a link when I post it.

Does Bob Barr hurt Obama’s chances?

This entry by John Scalzi on Bob Barr’s announcement that he is officially running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president is one of the better takes I’ve read on the prospects of Barr’s candidacy.

But let’s be real, here: the question [sic] not really whether I put Barr ahead of McCain in my voting queue, since I had no intention of voting for McCain in the first place. The question is whether some folks who might otherwise vote for McCain will do so, and whether there will be enough of them to constitute a genuine drag on McCain in the election. …

That’s certainly the case to an extent, but I wonder why no one seems to be talking about the other possibility, that Obama’s vote totals will also fall. I know I’ve encountered libertarians who are considering voting for Obama because they’d never vote for McCain. If they now vote for Barr if he wins the LP nomination, how much will that matter to Obama’s chances? I don’t have the answer, but it’s a question at least as worthy when considering the possibility that McCain is auditioning for a third Bush term. I know of few libertarians who would consider that for a moment, so Barr just isn’t stealing votes from there.

The liberaltarian meme is mostly policy crap designed to push libertarians to embrace a progressive agenda rather than a (classical) liberal approach to government. But it has adherents. How will they vote?

For what it’s worth, the quick link Mr. Scalzi provides to Barr’s policy positions reminds me why I’m very skeptical of Barr. The anti-immigration stance is troubling, at best, but throwing his support behind the Fair Tax as a “well-researched alternative” leaves me cold. Well-researched, maybe, but accurately marketed? Not so much.

They will fall in line. Mostly.

Consider this:


Now consider this:

I can’t believe smart people are implying that Republicans voting against Senator McCain in the ongoing primaries somehow spells specific, devastating trouble for McCain’s chances in November. Yet, with Senator Obama’s far lesser percentage support, the logic is somehow obvious that Democrats who voted for Senator Clinton will automatically back Obama in November. Of course they will, on both sides.

Being a partisan is generally the key point of someone’s political identity. Whatever policy disagreements exist matter, but rarely enough to fracture support for the party in the short-term. Witness George W. Bush in 2004. But it does not rule out a desire and willingness to cast a meaningless protest vote that indicates support for whatever distinction another candidates has from the inevitable nominee.

For consideration: Are we to believe that, even if Clinton’s supporters stay home, Obama will crush McCain because Obama’s vote total outstrips the entire Republican turnout by a margin of almost 2-to-1?

The entry where I praise Bob Barr.

I’ve encountered no comments from former Congressman, current (potential) Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr in response to Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings statement last week, so I’ll find something to praise about a Barr policy.

I approach Mr. Barr with a sufficient level of distrust because of his actions while in Congress. I didn’t follow politics as closely during the mid-to-late ’90s, so I’m working from my barely-informed position from those days. Mark from Publius Endures sums up much of what I remember in much greater detail when discussing both his qualms and potential for supporting a Barr candidacy. I’m not sold. I am intrigued.

Being a Libertarian Party candidate is no guarantee that I, as a libertarian, will be remotely interested. I wasn’t interested for multiple reasons in 2004 when Michael Badnarik won the nomination. And I hadn’t been interested this year before Barr joined the fun. Barr’s insider knowledge and name-recognition might help. If it can help shake up Washington, we can certainly talk.

Obviously Barr will not win the presidency, if he runs. That’s not the point. But I would be ecstatic with a president who believes this (under “Individual Liberty” in the Issues link):

he United States was created for the purpose of securing the liberties of its people. The colonists fled oppressive old world governments. The nation’s founders drafted the Constitution to sharply limit the federal government’s powers. The horrors perpetrated by the many collectivist tyrannies of the 20th Century demonstrate that the danger of government, any government, violating individual liberty is greater today than when America was founded.

That he’s willing to say it is huge. We are citizens, not subjects. None of the other candidates remotely cares about this where it interferes with a favored constituent group’s rent-seeking behavior. That’s not to say Barr would implement this even if he could get Congressional cooperation. But I’d be satisfied with a government stalemate. No progress is better than further decline.

And this, titled “No Torture. No Exceptions.”:

This administration has gone beyond even the Bizarro World standard of declaring up to be down or left to be right. Not only is torture not torture, but there exists insufficient clarity even to know what is torture so we can determine whether an interrogation technique is torture or not. While the extreme sophistry and word gamesmanship practiced to a fine art by this administration might make a high school debating coach proud, it does great disservice to the notion that we exist in a society in which there are rules and norms of behavior with clarity and definitiveness and in which government agents as well as the citizenry are held to standards of behavior. This is not something of which we as Americans should be proud, and the use of torture will come back to haunt us in ways this administration apparently either doesn’t realize or simply doesn’t care about.

Yes.

I found positions I (vehemently) don’t like among Barr’s positions. I’d also like details on what I like about his positions. I do not want to encounter another faux-libertarian who believes that liberty means accepting oppression locally as long as we remove the federal government from our lives. Another day.

The entry where I praise John McCain.

I’ve encountered no comments from Senator McCain in response to Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings statement last week, so I’ll find something to praise about a McCain policy.

I haven’t thought too deeply on the Second Amendment and all the implications. It just isn’t an issue I’m inclined to obsess over as a personal interest. Emotionally, I’m inclined to take a hard anti-libertarian position but that would be based outside of the fact pattern, as well as a dismissal of common sense and personal responsibility. I also understand more now about how a citizenry defends itself against tyranny from government or fellow men. The property right to one’s life is enough. So, I generally respect McCain’s position on the Second Amendment.

For example:

Gun Manufacturer Liability

John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

I don’t know enough about the legal details to have a position on how he proposes to achieve this. Still, when a business sells a legal, constitutionally-protected product in accordance that works correctly, what the buyer does with that product is the sole point for discussion. Gun manufacturers don’t kill people any more than Volkswagen kills someone when a drunk Passat owner gets behind the wheel and drives on the sidewalk. The product works as intended. End of discussion.

Also, this:

DC Personal Protection

As part of John McCain’s defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Once again, the legal questions are beyond my scope. But unlike D.C. voting rights, I can find no distinction within the Constitution that denies the protection of Second Amendment rights to residents of D.C. Any such argument essentially says that D.C. residents lose all Constitutional protection of their natural rights. That can’t be right.

Another contestant down.

I’m calling a technicality on this one because it doesn’t specifically refer to the release of Exxon Mobil’s quarterly earnings. Still, Sen. Obama is currently airing this ad in Indiana in anticipation of the coming primary. It has all the hot button issues: windfall profits, energy independence, foreign oil, and high gas prices. And there’s a belief that more money “invested” by the government will bring about a solution. That’s enough for a disqualification.