Category Archives: Political Animals

Election 2008

I don’t vote. Sometimes people ask me why. My answer changes from year to year. I try to make it as short as possible. For example, in 2004, I gave two reasons: George Bush and John Kerry.

There’s a lot more to it than that, of course. Opportunity costs. My vote would only affect the result if it was a tie breaker, which is unlikely. I’d be risking (gasp!) jury duty. If I genuinely like a third party candidate, they will lose even with my vote. And so on.

But simply saying the candidates’ names is usually enough to get my point across.

My answer is a bit longer this year, since the nominees aren’t yet settled. But I’ll be back down to two short reasons soon enough. Maybe even after Super Tuesday.

Charity and Government

An editorial in today’s new York Times, entitled “Charity Begins in Washington,” calls for greater government involvement in charity:

Critics of government spending argue that America’s private sector does a better job making socially necessary investments. But it doesn’t. Public spending is allocated democratically among competing demands.

Allocated democratically among competing demands? Government does not work that way.

Public sector charity is allocated by politicians making political calculations. Yes, the private sector is imperfect. But it doesn’t have half the systemic problems that government charity has. Inefficiency, politicization, rent-seeking, corruption, people gaming the system, you name it. All the good intentions in the world can’t change that.

Charity does not, and should not begin in Washington. It begins with you, me, and everyone else who wants to help our fellow man.

Some things are too important to be left to government. Charity is one of them.

Hillary: The Movie

There’s a documentary coming out attacking Hillary Clinton. It’s called Hillary: The Movie. The FEC now says the movie is an “electioneering communication,” and they must disclose who their donors are.

I poked around the movie’s website and looked at the previews. It is shallow, partisan hackery. And of course it’s intended to hurt Sen. Clinton’s candidacy. That’s the point!

My point is that political speech shouldn’t be treated any differently than any other kind of speech. The FEC has no business here; it is a shame that McCain-Feingold gives them that power. No criticizing candidates!

The people behind the movie think Clinton’s policies are bad for the country. This is their way of expressing that. I doubt the movie is any good; Ann Coulter is in it, for one. But they have the right to speak their minds, and their funders have the right to anonymity, no matter what the FEC says.

Huckabee and the Constitution

Quoth candidate Mike Huckabee:

“I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

I’m getting a better sense of why Democrats view Huckabee as an easy kill in the general election.

People believe in some weird things, and that’s fine; freedom of thought and all that. I just wish people like Gov. Huckabee weren’t so eager to force their beliefs on others.

Thoughts on Ron Paul’s Newsletters

A lot has been written about the Ron Paul newsletter kerfuffle. Here are my two cents, for those who aren’t yet sick of the issue.

I’m pretty sure Paul isn’t a racist. The newsletters have a spiteful, shrill prose style that is very unlike Paul’s. It does bear a stylistic resemblance to Lew Rockwell’s work. Reason’s Julian Sanchez and Dave Weigel have done some digging, and they believe Rockwell is the ghostwriter.

Read the piece – it’s really good. They say the racist content was part of a deliberate “grow-the-movement” strategy, probably Murray Rothbard’s idea. Julian and David don’t go into it, but Rothbard was fascinated by revolutionary thought, especially Lenin (who, after all, succeeded). Lenin’s strategy was to eschew majority support. Small and intensely devoted cadres were a better agent of revolt.

Racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism will never garner majority support. But people who hold such views tend to hold them very intensely, even at the price of social disapproval. Rothbard and Rockwell wanted to court these people and make them into their own cadres. Hence the offensive content in the Ron Paul newsletters.

Those illiberal views cannot be reconciled with libertarianism. Rothbard had probably read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, and didn’t think it mattered. Hoffer thought that some people are naturally prone to extremism, and can hold any ideology, so long as it’s radical. Thus the fringes the newsletters attracted could be turned into libertarians.

The cadre strategy didn’t work; Paul has had much more success this year by not pandering to racists. What worked in Russia in 1917 did not apply to America in the 1990s. Nor would it work today.

Rothbard and Rockwell’s idea has unintentionally done long-term damage to the movement to which both devoted their lives. An unwritten rule at organizations I’ve been associated with is “no kooks or crazies, please.”

Ron Paul, and Rothbard-Rockwell, have not followed that rule. They actively courted wild-eyed crazies. This is not the image libertarians should project if they want their ideas to be taken seriously.

So those are my thoughts. I have more to say about the old paleo-vs.-cosmopolitan libertarian schism that Newsletter-gate has reopened, but we’ll leave that for later.

Migraines and Voting

I just read a piece by Teri Roberts entitled “Migraine Medication Prices and Election ‘08.”

She concludes the article with this picture:

May I disagree. We all have the right to say what we please about any politician; this is not contingent on voting habits. Freedom of speech should not be restricted to those who vote.

Kucinich Wants New Hampshire Recount

I’m not kidding.

For those of you keeping track, he got less than 1.4% of the vote.

*head-desk*

Richardson Drops Out

Bill Richardson, the likely VP nominee (I think), has dropped out.

I expected him to direct his supporters towards Obama, since they seem to have had a vote-trading arrangement in Iowa. Richardson’s campaign urged his supporters to vote for Obama to help him win, presumably so Obama would name him as the VP nominee after securing the nomination.

There was no Obama endorsement, so I figure Richardson is hedging his bets. Smart thinking, what with Hillary’s New Hampshire success.

Empty Space in the GOP

I have a piece online at The Free Liberal about what the Iowa caucuses say about the state of the GOP.

Obama Campaign Reacts to Iowa Results