The Litmus Test in Politics

Senator McCain and the Republican Party are not free to pick the best candidate for Vice President.

You see, there is a self-imposed litmus test. The Vice Presidential candidate must be pro-life. One might think that qualifications for a candidate may include experience in elected office and knowledge of major policy issues, such as foreign affairs, energy, commerce, and education.

But not in the Republican Policy. They do not have the freedom to consider candidates first on their qualifications for office. Rather, their first consideration is the abortion litmus test. For those who do not pass this test, there is no chance to have their qualifications for office evaluated.

Yet another example of what our call our “fear of freedom.”

The Role of Government, or What’s Just Plain Wrong with the Libertarian Party Platform

In other blogs, I've criticized the conservatives and state socialism. This is my chance to criticize one of the things I think is wrong with the Libertarian Party Platform. The issue is: what is the proper role of government?

Generally, the Libertarian view is that to be truly free, there should be as little government as possible. This is in part left over from the days of monarchy in Europe, yet partly reinforced by the role of our federal government in things like land management in the West. And there are many examples of government incompetence, corruption, and the general failure of various agencies to do what they are supposed to do.

Still, the problem with the Libertarian Party is that they take an insistence on small government as some kind of religious tenant -- a “doctrine of small government” -- a “given” that can’t be questioned and therefore is central to all policy formation.

Fundamentally, once you hold a doctrine as sacred, you’re really limiting your own freedom and the freedom of others. I believe we are intelligent creatures and we need to think freely, unencumbered by such bondage as this “doctrine of small government.”

This is where I disagree with both traditional libertarianism and traditional socialism! (Hence, “the new Libertarian Socialist”)

The libertarians tend to say government is never the answer; the socialists tend to say government is always the answer. I say both are wrong!

My view: government is a tool of the people.

We live in a democracy, right? Government by the people, right?

Then government should be as big or small as it needs to be to serve the people.

We need to look at each function and program of government as ask:
· Is this the best way to do it?
· Is there a better way?
· Does government in this role make me freer or restrict my freedom?

If government is doing a good job and, from a management perspective, where government is the best way to accomplish a task, well let government do it.

Take our national highway system (as a transportation engineer, this is something dear to my heart). The prosperity and mobility of the American public is due in large part to having one of the most extensive and best highway systems in the world. And it’s a product of federal and state governments.

Is the government the best agent to build and maintain our national highways? If not the government, should it be sold to private investors to create a network of privately held toll roads? Granted bridges have fallen and some roads are poorly maintained, but looking at the big picture, is there any agent in the roadway business that would be more effective than government?

For national defense, the treasury, foreign policy, even the Libertarian Party agrees the government should be in this business.

Given the poor record (e.g., incompetence at FEMA, snooping on international phone calls and e-mail, etc.) of Homeland Security, I wonder if we’re better off taking care of ourselves! (See my blog: Are the Bush Republicans Really Maoists at Heart?)

As we think of the other hot issues of the day: how to pay for health care, our energy future, global climate change, etc. – I propose we use the same model I have above. Let’s assume that government is neither good nor bad. Then let’s think rationally about which is the best way to accomplish the goal.

Sometimes government may prove the best tool for the people. Sometimes it may be the worst.

But let’s not be so constrained by assuming that government either is or isn’t the solution.

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!

Choosing a Candidate

How should you choose a candidate, say for president? Many just pick the candidate of their party. Others will look what a candidate says and what policies she/he proposes and see how that fits with their own views. But are politicians really known for the truthfulness of their campaign promises? And how many politicians, once in office, have varied from their campaign statements?

Others may take the candidate’s experience and history into consideration. This is also helpful. But, I think you also need to look at overall candidate, how he/she is perceived, and what makes the candidate tick.

Here’s my analogy: choosing a candidate is like shopping for a dress. You can think of what you want: color, style, size, etc. But until you try it on, you don’t know if you’re comfortable wearing it. You many find a dress that meets your checklist, but it may not feel like you. Then again, you may find a dress that isn’t quite what you were thinking of, but when you try it on, it’s you.

So, I think you have to “try a candidate on” so to speak. Imagine the person in office and what our country and the world would be like with that person in office.

Barack Obama’s recent trip to the Mid-East and Europe gives us a unique opportunity to “try on” an Obama presidency. The trip provided a preview of what it may be like if Obama were elected.

Looking from the viewpoint of preserving freedom in our country, there is much to like. If you consider the image of the US abroad can impact the growth of anti-US terrorism, change could lead to a restoration of freedoms lost under the Bush administration. Without having to weaken our resolve, the mere image of an articulate, intelligent African-American as US President may bring about more “change” than any experienced corps of diplomatic and defense specialists. Such change could shift the policies of allies and enemies alike, refocusing our efforts against Al Qaeda with renewed support of many nations.

Now, one trip is not the only consideration for the next presidential candidate. Also, Obama has several Senate votes that didn’t support freedom (e.g., supporting extending warrant-less interception of international phone calls and e-mails). Still, seeing the reaction to Obama in many nations gives us a great opportunity to “try on” the candidate and see how the world might be with him in the White House. Whether you support Obama or not, you owe it to yourself to think about his trip and whether an Obama presidency would “fit you.”

Does Homeland Security Understand the Laws of Physics?

As I stated in my post “What is a libertarian socialist anyway???” I have come to realize that most of the frenzy over security in the post-9/11 world really stems from a poor understanding of the laws of physics. At times, I wonder if anyone in Homeland Security actually passed college physics.

I’m an engineer, so in college I had to take a lot of physics courses. One after another after another. But you can’t build a bridge or building if you don’t understand physics, particularly the law of gravity. Gravity separates the engineers from those with a poor understanding of physics – if you don’t do the calculations correctly, your bridge or building will fall down!

Some of the early proclamations from Homeland Security seemed to come from folks who failed physics. [To be fair, I’m sure there are a lot of folks there that do understand physics, but they’re not the ones coming out with some of these statements.]

There’s the recommendation of having 3 days of water on hand at all times. Now this may apply to those with a well and electric pump. But I live in a city whose water systems works by gravity. Most big cities have water systems that work by gravity. This is an old technology. The Romans understood it and built great aqueducts. The Incas in South American did the same.

There’s nothing that the terrorists can do to disrupt the law of gravity. Even if blow up something, gravity still works. The water still flows. So why do I need all this bottled water?

[More to follow]

Are the Bush Republicans Really Maoists at Heart?

Wow, you say, the Republicans hate communism, so how can they be adherents of Mao Zedong (former chairman of China’s Communist Party)? Simple: it’s the political process!

Let’s consider two examples of how the Bush Administration followed Mao’s principals.

Maoist Principal – The Party Line Comes First and All Serve the Party Line
Fundamental to Mao’s politics was the process: first one must develop the correct party line. From the party line, all else flows. And, all the party faithful must serve the party line. Thus, the arts, literature, political discourse, government programs, and even science must serve the party line.

Let’s consider science. How many times has the administration looked to have science serve the party line?

Take global climate change, for example. The concept is bad news for the oil business. So we hear Republicans in the administration and their spokesmen on talk radio tow the line “There’s no evidence of climate change” or “maybe it is getting warmer, but that’s just a natural phenomenon and it’s not due to the use of fossil fuels.” They also used their allies in industry to disinformation campaign to mislead the public, and reduce political pressure to reduce carbon emissions.

Rolling Stone reported on how the White House censored global-warming documents in 2005. The Bush administration installed an industry lobbyist to head the Council on Environmental Quality, a division of the White House that coordinates federal environmental efforts) and used the CEQ to ensure that only “science” that adheres to the party line on climate change would see the light of day.

[Sidebar: Why do you think opposition to evolution has such traction in the Republican Party? Does it come from the deeply held religious belief of party leaders? Nah. It’s a wedge issue. Rove and associates realized that if many of the party faithful reject the theory of evolution, they can use this to create a groundswell to challenge other scientific theories that don’t conform to the party line (i.e., climate change, pollution impacts of expanded drilling for oil, endangered species, etc.). If the party faithful are willing to challenge the scientist on evolution, then they can be convinced to challenge scientists on anything contrary to the Republican Party line.]

Just like Mao, the Bush Administration and faithful Republicans used science to serve their party line.


Maoist Principal – Loyalty to the Party Line Comes First before Technical Expertise
Mao also said that loyalty to the party line trumped technical expertise. Wow – can you say FEMA and Michael Brown? Can you hear Bush saying "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job” while the levees in New Orleans crumbled?

Now I’m an engineer, so if I was staffing FEMA and they had to move in after disasters and rebuild, I’d think of someone who knows about 1) construction 2) engineering and 3) emergency preparedness. But Brown was a lawyer with no experience in any of the above. So, contrast these results:

---FEMA: delayed response, city floods, thousands homeless, and those FEMA trailers with high formaldehyde levels
---Railroads: As reported in Railway Age, before the storm, they retreated inland beyond the storm’s reach. They hired all the contractors they could. After the storm subsided, they were in there rebuilding and most lines were back in use in a week or two.

The railroads understood emergency preparedness and how to rebuild after disaster. They learned their lessons over the last 150 years, from wars (Civil, WWI & II, etc.) and from disasters (floods, hurricanes, etc.).

Bush’s crony Brown didn’t have a clue.

[Interesting sidebar: In the Great Leap Forward, Mao attempted to implement untested and unscientific agricultural techniques. This included canals, dams, and other infrastructure projects. However, on ideological grounds, Mao rejected the use of trained engineers to implement these projects. Rather they were implemented by the party faithful. Mao had his own Michael Browns. Needless to say, the projects failed.]

As an engineer, this pisses me off! You need expertise to understand the laws of physics to build a dam, canal or levee. You can’t BS the law of gravity. Gravity wins every time. There are times when technical expertise must outweigh party loyalty.

Just like Mao, Bush prized loyalty over technical expertise.

These are but a few examples of how the Bush Administration and faithful Republicans adhere to political principals of Mao Zedong.

So I say the Bush Administration and its Republican Followers are Maoists at heart. Mao failed. And we can count the days until the failed Bush Administration is finally history!

7 Words You Shouldn't Say on the Phone or E-mail

The late comedian George Carlin has a hilarious routine about the 7 words you can't say on TV. Well, thanks to the Bush administration and a weak Congress, you better watch out when making international calls! See below for a list of 7 words you shouldn't say on an international call or e-mail.

The Administration now has broad powers to listen to any international call or e-mail. You might think they would focus on known or suspected terrorists or other bad guys. But the law is broad and the Feds could take the approach of sifting through the entire haystack looking for one needle.

So, on international calls and e-mails, the "Santa Rule" applies: "you better watch out." Don't say anything that sounds like you're a friend of any known or suspected terrorist group or others who may be up to no good.

Here's 7 words to start the list of what not to say:
1. bomb
2. Al-Qaeda
3. Taliban
4. jihad
5. Allāhu Akbar (God is great)
6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of Iran)
7. Death to America

Please add others to the list.

And remember, thanks to the Bush administration, free speach is limited! Practice it only when you're sure the Feds. aren't listening.

Brief side story: An Iranian friend of the family, a medical doctor, came to the US for a better life and because he had to be very careful of what he said in Iran, least he be arrested for critizing the government. So I ask you, why is the US becoming more like Iran than like the land of freedon we were meant to be?