Election Year in a Polarized America

Here we are in another Presidential election year.  But unlike past primaries, this year's race has a much different feel with the candidates, the issues, the tone of the speeches.  

Rejection of Establishment Politics:  On both sides, we see a rejection of the establishment parties.  It seems all the Republicans are running as outsiders, railing against Washington and the press.  We hear Donald Trump, unencumbered by anything "politically correct," saying what no Presidential candidate has ever said, reflecting the latent racism, misogamy, and fear of foreigners of his loyal followers.  And on the left, Bernie Sanders is a self-defined socialist, railing against Wall Street and capitalism in general.

No Middle Ground:  Listening to supporters on each side, there seems to be no middle, no chance that any good can come from the other side.  The right believes a Democrat in the Oval Office means they are coming for their guns, the borders will be porous allowing in all forms of criminals and terrorists, and the economy is going to hell.   The left believes a Republican will put the country in reverse, reversing a women's right to choose, disenfranchising minorities, and enacting policies that benefit the rich as the expense of the poor and middle class.

This time around, there seems to be a more urgent sense that they can't let the other side win, or it will be a disaster.

Now the primaries inherently play to the base of each party, to the hard core, if you will.  So, the questions is who will be the winners in each party?  And will it be possible for them to play to the middle, or will the general election further polarize the country?

Immigration and Terrorism

Syrian Refugee camp
Photo source:  Center for Immigration Studies

Paris, Nov. 14, 2015:  coordinated terrorists at-tacks result in 129 dead. The western world is now focused on these attacks, ISIS, and Syrian refugees.  It strikes fear in many.

And, not far behind, are the fear-mongers, scapegoating immigrants and Muslims.  The forces against freedom are ramping up.  Republican Senator Lindsay Graham summed it up as ISIS is Going to Kill Us All!  Not to be outdone, former Gov. Sarah Palin says ISIS will plant the flag of Allah atop the White House.  (Side note:  Isn't Allah the same as Christian's God the Father?  If the religious right says we are a Christian nation, why don't they embrace the idea of planting the flag of God the Father atop the White House?)

Yes, this is a serious threat and ISIS is certainly bent on a path of repression and gruesome murder of those who disagree with their distorted vision of Islam.  But, how do we respond to the threat?  They want their enemies to fear them and hate them.

I think that we in free democracies need to propose a two-pronged response.  First is that our governments need to strike back and remain vigilant on the intelligence front.  Second, and equally important, is we cannot surrender our freedoms in the face of murderous terror.

No to Fear!

We cannot cower in the fear of the possibility of a random act of terrorist violence.  On the rational side, we are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than be killed by ISIS.  We are more likely to be killed by a crazed gunman, and event that happens all too often in our nation.  (Unlike Europe, we are pretty well armed nation, and many gun owners would relish the opportunity to take out a few terrorists.)

We should pray for the victims, morn the victims.  But we need to carry on and live in freedom.

No to the Merchants of Fear!

The politicians are having a hayday with fear.  Particularly, conservative politicians seem to thrive when we have enemies to fear.  Fear is a strong emotion, and it gets out the vote!

But fear is crippling.   It clouds our judgment.  It leads to hatred and repression.   We must say no to the Merchants of Fear and their distorted vision.

No to Repression of Muslims and Immigrants!

The Merchants of Fear are calling for more repression of Muslims and immigrants.  

• We hear Donald Trump, taking an idea right out of the Nazi playbook, calling for Muslims to be tagged in a data base, not unlike sex offenders.  Is the next proposal forcing them to wear a crescent and star of Islam?

• We hear politicians like Jebb Bush calling for a religious test for refugees:  Christian is good, Muslim is no good.  (But this is from the party that keeps saying the US is a Christian nation and interpreting Freedom of Religion as only the freedom to choose which brand of Christianity you wish to follow.)
• We also hear politicians saying no to Syrian refugees.  Among the thousands of refugees, there is a chance there may be one or more agents of ISES.  Is this a reason to say no to all refugees?  Or maybe just tighter screening?

The Merchants of Fear know that fear leads to hate and hate leads to popular support for repression.  

What is most dangerous of repressive policies is that they often focus the fear and hate on the wrong population.  While conservatives supported the fear of Iraq, we were attacked by radical Saudis on 9/11.  While the attacks in Paris are being blamed on Syrian refugees, it appears they were planned by a Belgium national.  While we are lead to fear foreigners, most mass killings in the US are committed by US citizens.  

Fear distorts our view of where the real risk is.

We must be prudent.  Our government must fight back against ISES.  Our government must keep vigilant for intelligence about the plans of terrorists.

But having done what is prudent, we must carry on and not be be crippled or blinded by fear and hatred.  We must live and relish the freedom we have!

Tea Party Reps Fail

Boehner and Reid

With the recent passage of the extension of payroll tax cut, we have witnessed a major failure by the new Congressmen who align themselves with the Tea Party.  While the Tea Party and other conservatives (e.g., Michelle Bachman) have generally considered the ending of temporary tax breaks as de facto tax increases, many have been strongly opposed to this tax break that benefits mostly lower and middle income tax payers.

Why?  On the record, they say it's because it doesn't really stimulate the economy.  But the unspoken reason is simply that Pres. Obama supports the idea, so they must oppose anything that Obama supports.

Still, Republican leadership knows there's no need to alienate so many middle class voters 10 months before the elections.  That's political suicide.  They know this middle class tax cut is political candy (http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2011/12/political-candy-aka-payroll-tax-cut.html) and you don't steal candy from the voters!  Even some conservative commentators couldn't figure out the hard line opposition by conservatives and Tea Party reps.

We all know that a two month extension passed Congress and was signed by the President only days before Christmas.  But the scandal for every Tea Party voter is how each and every one of the Tea Party Congressmen failed to stop this.

It would have been so easy for just a single one of them to kill the bill.  Speaker of the House John Boehner resorted to some old fashion, quick-gabble methods.  With very little notice, he reconvened the House and put up the bill for passage by unanimous consent.   Granted some Tea Party reps. couldn't make it back to DC in time with such short notice, but some could.  And it would take only 1 Tea Party rep. to show up to stop it by opposing the unanimous consent.

But not a single one of them were there.  

In other words, the entire Tea Party delegation simply did not show up!  Is this not the classic complaint against government and government workers, namely not showing up to do their job?  Clearly, this should motivate all Tea Party voters to vote them all out for this failure to show! 

(Personally, I'm loving observing this dysfunctional family known as the Republican Party!)

Welcome to v2.0 of the Post 9/11 World

The current popular uprisings in the Middle East are proving the arch rivals of 9/11 wrong.

The neoconservatives of President George W. Bush's administration said democracy must come to the Middle East, but tried to install it by force, such as the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong. Democracy is coming from popular uprising, not unlike the way it emerged in the United Stated or in India.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida sought to overthrow the oppressive oligarchies through violent means. Today, bin Laden is far from center stage, as the oppressive oligarchies through nonviolent means.

Any day that both misguided neoconservatives in the US and misguided violent religious terrorists worldwide are proven wrong is a great day for the freedom of all people!

Be Not Complacent

The struggle for justice cannot coexist with complacency. We cannot fall asleep; we must remain alert.

Just a little sidebar on my political thinking: This thought did not come from a political speech I heard, but from my pastor’s sermon. In most of this blog, I tend to focus on the libertarian side of my brand of “new libertarian socialism” but from time to time I focus on my view of social responsibility. As a “libertarian socialist” I do not believe in the government forcing upon all a socialist agenda. Rather the concern for neighbor and preferential concern for the poor and oppressed must come out of our free will decision to share the great wealth we enjoy in this great nation with the poor and oppressed.

In the sermon this morning, my pastor challenged us not to be complacent by unjust situations or insufficient care for those in need. He was preaching social justice, just as Jesus did in stories such as the rich man and Lazarus, the beggar. It wasn’t that the rich man was inherently a bad person, but just one who became complacent.

In this regard, we have to be careful when politicians or media mouthpieces proclaim a return to our Christian values, such as the assembly in Washington, DC a few weeks ago organized by Glenn Beck. This is part of a dangerous trend for conservatives to claim they speak for God. (I have no love for the politically motivated who want to tell us what religion to follow or, as Glenn Beck did, what type of church to belong to!

That’s why I’ve uploaded “Glen Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead” by James Martin. It clearly explains how a politically motivated media mouthpiece can claim the mantle of Christianity while cherry-picking the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.

Will Marijuana Use Become Legal In California?

On Wednesday, March 24th, the Secretary of State in California certified that there were enough signatures to put this question on the ballot in November. Just in time to distract us from the never ending post-mortem of the health care debate, this should be an interesting issue to watch, particularly when a 2009 Field poll indicated the “yes” vote at 56%.

California, with its unique “legislation by ballot measure” approach to governing, is always entertaining for political observers like me. What will be interesting is watching which groups line up on either side of this issue. Not surprisingly, all candidates for Governor plus police associations have come out against it. And I would expect social conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, to be against it, as typically they like government to enforce their view of moral behavior on all, even in private.

Also, in the “to be expected” category, many in the industry supplying California’s legal medical marijuana are for it. But the argument for the ballot measure has a new twist: proponents claim a $1.4 billion benefit to the state in terms of tax revenues and savings related to police enforcement and court cases. That's a lot of revenue in tough times. So, legalize pot and ease the state out of the recession is their theme of proponents.

True Libertarians would come out for this idea, as it legalizes a private matter that adults could partake in and it’s not worth wasting the government’s time and money on keeping it illegal. The measure would allow those over 21 to use it in private, but not in public places of where minors are present.

Perhaps more surprising are that a number of police officers, frustrated by the wasted effort on nonviolent drug offenders, who support the measure as a way to focus on more significant criminal activities. But joining the "nays" are some of the current growers who fear legalization will flood the market with cheap pot (as anyone can grow it legally in a plot not exceeding 25 feet), thereby putting them out of business.

Most of all, I’m interested in seeing how conservatives and Republicans line up on this issue. This is a wedge issue that separates the true Libertarians from the social conservatives. So, I wonder where the tea party folks will be?

So, I’m looking forward to this on, if nothing more than seeing who lines up on which side of this issue. (And it’s not health care, for a change!)

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/25/us/AP-US-Marijuana-Legalization.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Attacks on Freedom from the Right

As a Libertarian, I have learned there is more to fear from conservatives attacking our basic freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution than from liberals. Conservatives are more likely to talk up small government and personal freedom (and “sound” libertarian), and then advocate government enforcement of their which often includes the expansion of government power, be it by snooping into our libraries and phone calls (with the Patriot Act) or even into a woman’s womb (with their anti-choice agenda).

Libertarians have to call out the conservatives on two recent proclamations:

1. Glen Beck claiming he knows better than you what religion or congregation you should belong to; and
   
2. Lynne Cheney’s attack on the patriotism of lawyers defending detainees as provided for in the law of this land.

Glen Beck’s Attack on Freedom of Religion.
This one has me steaming! Recently Glen Beck ask his audience to leave their congregation if the words “social justice” or “economic justice” are used. He said: “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

While I support his freedom to say anything he likes, I don’t want anyone – in government or in the media (like Mr. Beck) – telling me ANYTHING about how I should practice my religion!!

No one has the right to tell me which religion to believe in or which house of worship or congregation to attend! The First Amendment to the US Constitution may only talk about Congress not making any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion; I take it as my personal right that I am the one and only person who decides what I believe in and where I choose to go to practice this religion. No one who believes America is the land of Freedom should be letting someone like Mr. Beck tell them how to practice religion!

Lynne Cheney’s Attack on Defense Lawyers
The implication of these attacks by Keep America Safe was to question the patriotism of lawyers that would defend detainees who were accused of being terrorists. There was another issue that lawyers who defended detainees should be “outed” if they want a government position.

Here’s thing: Amendment 6 of the US Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to have counsel at trial. Even in a military trial (as were the cases in question), there is also the right for counsel. Within the legal profession, there is a tradition that no lawyer is looked down upon for defending an unpopular defendant.

And there are plenty of unpopular defendants accused of despicable crimes. There are mass murderers, serial rapists, organized crime, kingpins, pedophiles, and other despicable criminals. But when they go on trial, they all have a right under the laws of this land to defense counsel. From the time of John Adams providing defense counsel to British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, the tradition is not to look down upon those who defend unpopular defendants.

And we need this right to prevent government tyranny. Without a trial system where the government has to prove its case, it would be all to easy to trump up a case against anyone it didn't like or considered an "enemy." If they do that to detainees or alleged terrorists today, they could do that to you and me tomorrow!

Even in this post-9/11 world, we have to preserve our freedoms and the American way. Conservatives seem to need an "enemy" to validate their policies. Libertarians make no such distinctions. Today's terrorist could be tomorrow's patriot. Today's enemy can be tomorrow's friend. Therefore, equality under the law for all.

So, why do some conservatives think detainees are so more evil or threatening than mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, or even the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre (all of whom are allowed defense counsel)? Terrorists are not the only ones out there who want to deprive us of life and liberty. There's plenty of criminals with the same aim!

Yet it seems part of some conservative agenda to fully demonize detainees and terrorists to the point that they should have absolutely no rights and do not deserve legal counsel. Then pile it on by promoting guilt by association: anyone who would assist these terrorists is therefore not patriotic.

My point here is to quote the conservative mantra of the ‘60s and ‘70s” Law and Order. If the laws of the land guarantee legal counsel for detainees in military trials, then they should have counsel and any lawyer providing that service is acting within the law and should not be disparaged. If some conservatives don’t like the law, well, then work to change the law! But we must obey the laws as they are! And don’t attach those who are providing a necessary role as prescribed by law.

How Do You Tell a Libertarian from a Conservative?

I suspect there are a lot of conservative politicians pretending to be libertarians. But there’s a simple test to tell the real supporters of individual freedom from the imposters:

• A libertarian believes in freedom, but lets you decide what to do with it.
• A conservative believes in freedom, but likes to tell you how to use your freedom.

You can weed out the “conservatives in libertarian clothes” with the wedge issues such as immigration, abortion and gay marriage.

Take immigration. The pure libertarian view is based on the free movement of people: that people should be free to live and move where ever they want. Even the somewhat timid 2008 Libertarian Party platform in item 3.4 says “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” (http://www.lp.org/platform)

Contrast that with any conservative politician or talk radio host advocating for tight borders, limited immigration, and the prosecution of illegal immigrants. Thanks to conservatives, we now have to prove we are US citizens when we start a new job. Like many of you, I was born here and lived here all my life. Why do I have to prove I’m a citizen? This type of conservative-supported harassment of US citizens is only worse if you a citizen who happens to look like the current wave of immigrants (e.g., if you happen to be Hispanic, for example).

When it comes to immigration, as with homeland security, the conservatives will always pick “security” at the cost of personal freedom.

With abortion and gay marriage, there is a huge disparity in the opinions of citizens nationwide. In many cases, personal opinions are strongly held and based on deep religious convictions, beliefs that must be respected if we choose to support personal freedom. Like you, I have my own opinions on these issues. But a national consensus is impossible. So, it is best that government (particularly national government) just stay out of these issues.

In particular, I think that government has no role in defining what is or isn’t marriage. Definitions and traditions of marriage are deeply seeded in religious and cultural heritage. And these traditions evolve – fewer cultures retain arranged marriages today, whereas this was the norm in many cultures in centuries past. Let religions and cultures define what marriage is. Let government help couples make the legal arrangements related to such issues of joint property, inheritance, and consultation in medical matters.

Of course, I don’t think there’s a conservative politician who does now want to impose her/his definition of marriage on us all.

So that’s the test. If a politician prefers security over freedom or really wants to tell you how to use your freedom, she/he is not a libertarian!