Steve Baker MP: ‘I’m sick of the Cabinet sitting there fat, dumb and happy’ – The Telegraph

Some of Bakers views are well outside the mainstream. He believes, for example, that central banks are complicit in state-managed economic growth that amounts to monetary socialism and should be disbanded. As he describes how the global monetary system is basically a big confidence trick.

He thinks the cost of living crisis is likely to lead to a crunch debate about fiscal and monetary policy. High inflation plus rising interest rates is really going to add up to misery for millions of people. And the answer to it is, of course, free markets, strong property rights, sound money and low taxes. And the Conservative partys gonna have to rediscover its capacity to deliver those things, he says.

I believe were heading for a bond market storm as a result of inflation rising and the Bank of England raising interest rates. Boris Johnson will face a choice between dramatically slashing spending or changing the Banks mandate.

In 2020, the former chancellor Sajid Javid and the former treasury minister Lord ONeill, in what Baker describes as an obviously co-ordinated way, called for the Bank of Englands inflation target to be scrapped in favour of nominal gross domestic product targeting. Baker is worried this idea will be adopted in order to keep the quantitative easing taps on.

You can keep debasing the currency with money printing up to the point at which people start worrying youre never going to stop, which is when the currency collapses. If the Prime Minister and the Treasury are daft enough to change over to a monetary system that allows money creation into an environment of higher inflation, we could destroy the currency. Thats what is on the table.

At his Parliamentary assessment board Baker had to write an essay on why he was a Conservative. Hed just read Friedrich Hayeks essay Why I am Not a Conservative. I basically just regurgitated it onto the page. And they said to me: Thats one of the best essays weve ever read!

Indeed, he voted Liberal Democrat in his first general election and only became a Eurosceptic after the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which he describes as a mortal sin. As a Christian, he has no issues with shared sovereignty and as a classical liberal, hes all in favour of free movement of goods and people. For him, Brexit is first and foremost a question of democratic accountability.

I always understood that there would be downsides and difficulties to leaving the EU. Much as I hate customs paperwork, much as I hate having to have rows about SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] measures [on food imports] in Northern Ireland and all the rest of it, those rows are worth having in order to maintain the principle that the public get the government they vote for.

It is that principle that drove him to become one of the of the so-called Spartans the 28 Tory MPs who voted against Mays Brexit deal on three occasions. But his refusal to compromise doesnt mean he isnt reflective. I am filled with regret and lament that our country has ended up so bruised and divided. I didnt like either [referendum] campaign very much. I particularly didnt like the [Leave] bus [emblazoned with the promise to spend the 350m sent to Brussels each week on the NHS] and I said so during the campaign, which was controversial. People seem to have forgotten that.

Original post:

Steve Baker MP: 'I'm sick of the Cabinet sitting there fat, dumb and happy' - The Telegraph

On The Trail: The era of big government Republicanism – The Hill

Republican governors and legislators have embarked on new campaigns to restrict the rights of their constituents and punish those who voice dissent, flexing the power of government run by a party that once pledged to keep government out of private life.

On issues ranging from transgender rights to cross-border trade and private business decisions related to the coronavirus pandemic, Republican lawmakers have advanced measures this year that insert government into many facets of American life.

Twenty-six years after a Democratic president declared an end to the era of big government, that era is back but now its being driven by the Republican Party.

As the right moves into post-liberalism and away from what traditionally has been defined as conservative, it is much more comfortable with wielding state power to own the libs, said Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center and author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party. They would say the state is the only major institution in American life that conservatives now control they have to make full use of whatever power is available to them.

Legislatures in Alabama approved measures barring doctors from providing medical care to transgender youth, over the objections of every major medical association in the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an order classifying the provision of gender-affirming care including the use of puberty-delaying hormones as child abuse.

Supporters of those measures focus on and, in one recent case in Michigan, even fundraise off of gender-affirming surgeries, glossing over provisions that would restrict a doctor from prescribing common medicines for treatment.

Lawmakers in two states have sought to ban people from seeking treatment in other states: An Idaho bill that died in the state Senate would have made a felon of anyone who helped a transgender child travel out of the state to seek treatment. A Missouri lawmaker has proposed a similar penalty for those who help women obtain an abortion in another state.

Republican opponents of abortion access have long carved out exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the life or health of the mother. Measures dropping exceptions for rape or incest have passed in Oklahoma and New Hampshire this year; the Utah Republican Party has proposed eliminating exceptions for the health of the mother in its official platform. The Oklahoma measure makes it a felony to perform an abortion.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) last month signed legislation that will bar teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in front of young children, a bill opponents call the Dont Say Gay law. Officials in other states, led by Texas Gov. Abbott (R) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), say they will make a similar measure a priority when legislators reconvene next year.

When the Disney Corporation voiced its opposition to the Florida law, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to punish the company by eliminating its special tax district which may have the unintended consequence of providing Disney a massive tax break at a cost borne by Florida taxpayers.

Abbott, playing on fears of a tidal wave of migrants poised to cross the southern border, offered his own big-government plan to add new checks on cargo coming into his state. Eight days of inspections cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.3 billion in lost revenue and turned up no drugs and no undocumented immigrants.

Historians say it is not uncommon for parties to alter their views on government intervention when it suits their purposes. Eric Foner, a political scientist at Columbia University and author of Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, a history of the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War, said the era marked a similar shift among Southern Democrats.

Before the Civil War Democrats advocated limited government.Yet when it came to protecting and expanding slavery they insisted on vigorous federal action for example the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the strongest federal intervention in the states of the entire era, Foner wrote in an email.

Other Republicans showed no qualms about the exercise of federal power. Kabaservice, of the Niskanen Center, pointed to Theodore Roosevelt, who used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up Standard Oil and J.P. Morgans Northern Securities Company.

More recently, Republican presidents who dared stray from small-government orthodoxy were attacked as apostates. George H.W. Bush suffered the slings and arrows from the libertarian right when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law in 1990. His son, George W. Bush, called himself a compassionate conservative and took heat from Republicans who opposed a Medicare expansion measure that bitterly divided his own party.

Todays Republican Party is more influenced by former President Trump, whose ideological inconsistencies have never troubled his most ardent fans and imitators. Trump never offered a paean to limited government, if power could be used to punish blue states and political opponents.

Kabaservice said he saw parallels between the recent Republican exercises in power and the McCarthy era, when conservatives like William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell approved of McCarthyism because they saw it as a template for a much more thoroughgoing government repression of dissent, Kabaservice said in an email.

They wanted to use the state as an instrument of coercion to enforce social conformity, to regulate and control human behavior, and to drill into Americans the principles of duty, order, obedience and authority, he wrote.

Rick Wilson, the onetime Republican strategist-turned-Trump critic, said Trump revived the clash between small-government conservatism and the inclination of those who hold power to exercise it.

Trumps natural leanings toward authoritarianism merged with the post-libertarian moment of conservatism. As nationalism and populism replaced it, the argument against using the power of the state for ideological ends became weaker and weaker, Wilson said. I fear that once the demon is out of the pentagram, its hard to put it back.

On The Trail is a reported column by Reid Wilson, primarily focused on the 2022 elections.

Visit link:

On The Trail: The era of big government Republicanism - The Hill

Solutions in the spotlight at 14th Congressional District debate – Northwest Georgia News

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more here:

Solutions in the spotlight at 14th Congressional District debate - Northwest Georgia News

Opinion | The Empty Vessel of Matthew McConaughey – POLITICO

The enthusiasm for the McConaughey candidacy captured by the pollsters is less an endorsement of his mashed-up politics than it is an exercise in name recognition and evidence of the power of charisma. The Texas governor election wont be held for another 18 months; asking voters who they would vote for that far out from Election Day is like asking somebody what theyre going to have for dinner two weeks from Thursday. They might give an answer, but they wont feel bound by it.

This is not to suggest that McConaughey wouldnt make a viable candidate. But if he does, hell start having to do the kind of things that alienate peoplelike deciding whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Hes been a little mum on the topic, although he did declare in 2017 a need for us to unite around President Donald Trump. Name recognition can carry a novice candidate a long way in a competitive contest, even if their positions and affiliations are a little fuzzy. Other famous performers, including Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono and this guy named Trump you might have heard about, silenced the doubters by winning office in their first tries in part because they were known quantities, so theres hope for the McConaughey candidacy (or even Caitlyn Jenners rumored campaign for California governor) if its genuine.

But is it? Howard Stern hoaxed his way into and out of the New York governor race in 1994, and Charles Barkley is forever doing the same in Alabama. In 2017-18, Kid Rock got in trouble with the Federal Elections Commission for a U.S. Senate run that bore some of the real markers of a genuine campaigna campaign slogan, a Kid Rock for Senate website, campaign merch, and his political speeches at his concerts. (The Kid escaped FEC wrath by asserting his campaign was just a publicity stunt for his new album.) McConaughey, as mentioned, has a memoir out, so any publicity is good publicity for him right now.

We shouldnt be entirely dismissive of entertainers running for president. Actor Cynthia Nixon ran a decent, and serious, campaign for New York governor in 2018. Song-and-dance man George Murphy didnt embarrass himself in the U.S. Senate after winning a seat from California. Performers such as Bono, Bob Dornan, Fred Grandy, Ben Jones, Schwarzenegger, Helen Gahagan Douglas and John Davis Lodge, a Hollywood star of the 1930s and 1940s, pulled their weight after winning elections.

Given their combined track record, perhaps every major election should have a celebrity candidate on the ballot to provide voters with periodic relief from the professional politicians who monopolize public office. Besides, the Texas chief executive has traditionally been weak compared to other states, so McConaugheys ego trip to the governors mansion cant do that much damage. Instead, it should remind us of how forgiving and accepting the political process can be. America is a blessed place where even those with little political talent, less political knowledge and no political horse sense can win elections as long as they have a memorable name. May the best-known candidate win!

In Texas, the best-known candidate has got to be Matthew McConaughey. So is he really running? Thats anybodys guessbut so far it looks more like a middle-aged morning jog than a real run.

******

I deliberately avoided Ronald Reagan in this piece because he was a committed politician and campaigner long before he ran for California governor in 1966. That said, name recognition played a big role in his political victories. Send your campaign-finance filings to [emailprotected]. My email alerts use facial recognition to vote. My Twitter feed thinks Clinton is still president. My RSS feed still backs George Papoon for president.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | The Empty Vessel of Matthew McConaughey - POLITICO

Pellerin: Don’t flout COVID rules in the name of ‘freedom’ – London Free Press (Blogs)

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, I'm dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

Author of the article:

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, Im dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

The whole basis of libertarianism, as I understand it, is we dont need governments to tell us what to do, that free, informed and decent citizens know how to do the right thing. I think its fair to say the last few weeks have shown this belief system to be a dangerous illusion when improperly applied.

I still believe that with our good hearts and proper information, we are more than capable of helping create a better, freer, fairer and more prosperous world. That good people will do whats necessary to protect their fellows and themselves, even if that entails sacrifices. Back in September, I wrote: We are, fundamentally, . . . a free people. We are also . . . empathetic creatures. Freedom alone, exercised without restraints, leads to anarchy and selfishness. Empathy by itself is powerless to do anything. Our superpower is activated when we combine those two features.

Except for the, er, exceptions. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is fond of calling those who defy public health restrictions yahoos. But even he wouldnt use that term to describe elected officials. People such as Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, federal party leader Maxime Bernier and what appears to be one-quarter of Alberta Premier Jason Kennedys caucus are among those who seem proud to show themselves as dangerous, irresponsible refuseniks. And Im trying to be polite.

Its easy to dismiss folks who fund Ezra Levants Rebel out of frustration with politics, and the ill-informed Twitter troll army. But when so many in positions of power and authority encourage others to show up unmasked at a Kemptville bar or an Edmonton-area church claiming the police state (sic) is attacking Christians by enforcing public-health regulations, we have a problem. When these people need ventilators at an overcrowded ICU, whose fault will it be? Is it OK for them to use hospital resources while kids with complex medical needs, whove been following public health guidelines, endure more delays in necessary treatments because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients, especially if they caught COVID bey ignoring safety rules?

Whose freedom is really at risk, here? Whose rights are infringed?

I dont want lectures about freedom from people unwilling to make relatively small personal sacrifices for the common good. Not to minimize the real hardships many Canadians endure because of COVID; they are real, and they hurt. So do smaller sacrifices we all make. But if you wont tolerate a face mask or virtual religious services when everyone else is on Zoom for everything, dont tell me how your rights are being violated by a tyrannical public health autocracy.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Im not here to tell you what to do or believe, but if, like me, you are disgusted with elected officials encouraging greed, selfishness and deliberate endangerment of others in the name of freedom, vow never to vote them, and their dangerous ideology, back in.

Brigitte Pellerin is an Ottawa writer

Excerpt from:

Pellerin: Don't flout COVID rules in the name of 'freedom' - London Free Press (Blogs)

More women then men are getting COVID-19 shots – The Union Leader

Mary Ann Steiner drove 2 hours from her home in the St. Louis suburb of University City to the tiny Ozark town of Centerville, Mo., to get vaccinated against COVID-19. After pulling into the drive-thru line in a church parking lot, she noticed that the others waiting for shots had something in common with her.

Everyone in the very short line was a woman, said Steiner, 70.

Her observation reflects a national reality: More women than men are getting COVID vaccines, even as more men are dying of the disease. KHN examined vaccination dashboards for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in early April and found that each of the 38 that listed gender breakdowns showed more women had received shots than men.

Public health experts cited many reasons for the difference, including that women make up three-quarters of the workforce in health care and education, sectors prioritized for initial vaccines.

Womens longer life spans also mean that older people in the first rounds of vaccine eligibility were more likely to be female. But as eligibility expands to all adults, the gap has continued. Experts point to womens roles as caregivers and their greater likelihood to seek out preventive health care in general as contributing factors.

In Steiners case, her daughter spent hours on the phone and computer, scoping out and setting up vaccine appointments for five relatives. In my family, the women are about a million times more proactive about getting a COVID vaccine, Steiner said. The females in families are often the ones who are more proactive about the health of the family.

As of early April, statistics showed the vaccine breakdown between women and men was generally close to 60% and 40% women made up 58% of those vaccinated in Alabama and 57% in Florida, for example.

States dont measure vaccinations by gender uniformly, though. Some break down the statistics by total vaccine doses, for example, while others report people who have gotten at least one dose.

A handful of states report gender vaccination statistics over time. That data shows the gap has narrowed but hasnt disappeared as vaccine eligibility has expanded beyond people in long-term care and health care workers.

In Kentucky, for instance, 64% of residents who had received at least one dose of vaccine by early February were women and 36% were men. As of early April, the stats had shifted to 57% women and 43% men.

In New Hampshire, one of the states furthest along in rolling out the vaccines the gap on April 13 was 18 percentage points for two doses (58.4% women and 40.4% men) and 13 percentage points for one dose, (55.8% percent women and 42.9% men).

A few states break the numbers down by age as well as gender, revealing that the male-female difference persists across age groups.

Dr. Elvin Geng, a professor at the medical school at Washington University in St. Louis, said women of all age groups, races and ethnicities generally use health services more than men which is one reason they live longer.

Arrianna Planey, an assistant professor who specializes in medical geography at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said its often women who manage medical appointments for their households so they may be more familiar with navigating health systems.

Decades of research have documented how and why men are less likely to seek care. A 2019 study in the American Journal of Mens Health, for example, examined health care use in religious heterosexual men and concluded masculine norms such as a perception that they are supposed to be tough were the main reason many men avoided seeking care.

Attitudes about the COVID pandemic and the vaccines also affect who gets the shots.

Dr. Rebecca Wurtz, director of public health administration and policy at the University of Minnesota, said women have been more likely to lose jobs during the pandemic, and in many cases bear the brunt of teaching and caring for children at home.

Women are ready for this to be done even more than men are, Wurtz said.

Political attitudes, too, play a part in peoples views on coping with the pandemic, experts said. A Gallup poll last year found that among both Democrats and Republicans, women were more likely to say they took precautions to avoid COVID, such as always practicing physical distancing and wearing masks indoors when they couldnt stay 6 feet apart from others.

In a recent national poll by KFF, 29% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats said they definitely would not get the shot.

Paul Niehaus IV of St. Louis, who described himself as an independent libertarian with conservative leanings, said he wont get a COVID vaccine. He said the federal government, along with Big Tech and Big Pharma, are pushing an experimental medicine that is not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and he doesnt trust those institutions.

This is a freedom issue. This is a civil liberties issue, said Niehaus, a 34-year-old self-employed musician. My motto is Let people choose.

Steiner said she was eager to be vaccinated. She has an immune disorder that puts her at high risk for severe illness from COVID and hasnt seen some of her grandchildren in a year and a half.

She has now received both doses of the Moderna vaccine and said she doesnt regret taking the more difficult step of traveling five hours round trip to get her first shot in February. (She was able to find a closer location for her second dose.)

Its for my safety, for my kids safety, for my neighbors safety, for the people who go to my churchs safety, she said. I really dont understand the resistance.

Follow this link:

More women then men are getting COVID-19 shots - The Union Leader

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration – Immigration Blog

The Democratic party has taken a radical turn on immigration. Gone are the not-so-distant days of Barbara Jordan, when concern for the rule of law and social and economic cohesion were taken seriously. Today, the party is led by firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who call for abolishing an entire enforcement agency. Democrats have staffed all four immigration-related panels in the House of Representatives with members who are hostile to national borders. The Democratic-controlled chamber has already passed two major amnesty bills. Not to be outdone, President Biden has signed several executive actions that stop construction of the border wall, eviscerate interior enforcement, and remove restrictions on travelers from regions rife with terrorism, among other things.

None of these policies had the support of Democratic leadership in the 1990s. At that time, President Clinton was enforcing the law, environmentalists were concerned about population growth, and labor unions were prioritizing American workers. Those positions, which had bipartisan support, are condemned as close-minded and bigoted by Democratic leadership today. What brought about this fundamental change, a change so extreme it threatens the very sovereignty of the United States? Like their libertarian counterparts on the right, one should never discount the powerful financial incentive that Democratic elites have for opposing borders. But powerful financial incentives existed long before the current push to effectively abolish immigration law. The mainstreaming of these radical positions is, at least in part, the result of a long Gramscian march through the institutions that began in the early 20th century.

In his book The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, Michael William traces the development of critical theory by a group of German social scientists who grew disillusioned with the failure of traditional Marxism. Realizing no proletarian revolt was forthcoming, they converted the ideologys attacks on class into broader cultural antagonisms. The group, known as the Frankfurt School, saw the fundamental structure of Western society as irredeemably oppressive and sought its eventual overthrow through internal conflict. This conflict would be fomented primarily through the manipulation of language that would recast all relationships as power struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. By changing the way that familial and social relationships were defined, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and their colleagues sought to change the way that people understood these relationships. Over time, they hoped that discontent and division would break down the existing order of society.

In his essay Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse, echoing Rousseau, argues that public opinion is invalid because a false consciousness has become the general consciousness, enslaving people who do not know they are enslaved. This tyranny of the majority, which masquerades as tolerance, can only be overcome by militant intolerance. Marcuse advocates banning the speech and assembly of certain groups and he calls for the withdrawal of civil rights from a majority who is oppressing the minority. He supports rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions and argues that support for calm and reasoned debate facilitates oppression. What is needed is the development of an enraged and subversive faction that is willing to engage in violence against the established order.

Marcuse believed that the catalyst for this uprising would be alienated minority groups. Such groups would take the place of the broader working class who, to Marcuses chagrin, seemed content in their supposed oppression. So he looked to the American black population as a possible source of agitation and supported militant activism. It is important to note that Marcuse did not want these activists to succeed in remedying injustice, but wanted minorities to remain marginalized from the larger society. As William explains, For Marcuse, the integration into society of supposedly alienated groups acts as a stabilizing force and thereby neutralizes the revolutionary elements which, according to Marxism, should be committed to societys overthrow.

The key for Marcuse, a founder of critical theory, was to sow division. It was not to redress wrongs or grievances within the existing social framework, but to perpetuate and inflame those wrongs and grievances until the social framework could be overthrown. Integrating peoples into a functioning society was not helpful to his goal of revolution. But one major development, which Marcuse may not have even anticipated, was helpful: the modern era of mass immigration. As Marcuse was winding down, that era was winding up. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 exponentially increased the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. In just a couple of decades, there were enough newcomers to begin to overwhelm the assimilation process. And by that time, there were enough critical theorists in academia to challenge the very notion of assimilation.

One such theorist is Jurgen Habermas, a prominent German sociologist whose voluminous body of work is heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. As William points out, Habermas believes that the classic form of the nation state is disintegrating and envisions a constitutional patriotism that is stripped of language and culture and devoted to a political authority that extends civil rights beyond borders. He claims that citizenship was never conceptually tied to national identity and that republican freedom can cut its umbilical links to the womb of the national consciousness which had originally given birth to it. Habermasnow sees the possibility of a global public sphere that was once imagined by Kant and Rousseau: The arrival of world citizenship is no longer merely a phantom, though we are still far from achieving it. State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum that already shows itself, at least in outline form.

For the classic form of nations to disintegrate, national identity must first be dissolved. Habermas, like many of his fellow academics, sees mass immigration as a catalyst for this process. He praises the effect of multiculturalism on the United States and, in the European context, writes approvingly that Immigration from Eastern Europe and poverty-stricken regions of the Third World will intensify multicultural diversity in these societies. This will give rise to social tensions. He believes that these social tensions, which were sought by Marcuse, will hasten the move to a supranational governing structure that is devoid of shared history or tradition.

Like Marcuse, Habermas dismisses the suffering that will result from these social tensions. He denigrates concerns over the upheaval caused by mass immigration, referring to such concerns as the chauvinism of prosperity: The European states should agree upon a liberal immigration policy. They should not draw their wagons around themselves and their chauvinism of prosperity, hoping to ignore the pressures of those hoping to immigrate or seek asylum. The democratic right of self-determination includes, of course, the right to preserve ones own political culture, which includes the concrete context of citizens rights, though it does not include the self-assertion of a privileged cultural life form.

Habermas asserts that Ones own national tradition will, in each case, have to be appropriated in such a manner that it is related to and relavtiveized [sic] by the vantage points of other cultures. He sees mass immigration and the relativizing of cultures as a way of democratizing citizenship. This process is being pushed with a particular goal in mind. As he explains, Only democratic citizenship can prepare the way for a condition of world citizenship which does not close itself off within particularistic biases, and which accepts a worldwide form of political communication.

This view is now pervasive among public figures. William cites several others, like Bhikhu Parekh, a British political theorist turned politician who served on race and multicultural commissions before being appointed to a life peerage in the House of Lords. Parekh uses his influential position to call for unlimited immigration to transform the United Kingdom into a community of communities and a multicultural post-nation that sheds its cultural identity. These sentiments are nearly universal in American universities and are routinely pushed by post-American politicians and activists. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden tersely summarized this view with his assertion that people who entered the United States illegally are more American than most Americans are. In other words, America is merely a vague unrooted universal sentiment.

Underlying this position is the skepticism and intolerance of critical theory, with its contempt for the rule of law and efforts to integrate newcomers into a majority culture that is seen as oppressive. As William notes, this contempt extends to patriotic citizens, who are now being taught to embrace a hatred for their countries and their histories. Like previous revolutions, this great upheaval is being undertaken with the foolish hope of creating a secular utopia. Whether they realize it or not, Democratic leaders are now perpetuating this upheaval with their efforts to effectively abolish immigration law.

See the rest here:

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration - Immigration Blog

What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. – USAPP American Politics…

In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the partys 2016 election result.Jeffrey MichelsandOlivier Lewiswrite that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to beking makersin the 2020 election, their dislike of DonaldTrump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

In the 2016 US Presidential election,the former RepublicanGovernor of New Mexico,Gary Johnsongained3.3 percentof the national vote share,the highest on record foraLibertarian Partypresidential candidate.This modest milestonecould have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump andformer Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton. But itmightalso haveportendeda more meaningful movement inUSelectoral politics,onein which a growing Libertarian Party or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters gainsthecriticalmass totip the race.Infiercely competitive bipartisancontests, protests voterscould position themselvesaspower brokers.

When we entertained this possibilityduring the primary season,plenty ofsigns were pointing toanother strongresult for the LibertarianParty.The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relativelyradicalcandidateslike Senators Elizabeth Warren and BernieSanders,who were proposinga new pushofstateintervention in the economyanathemaof courseto libertarian ideology.Meanwhile,Trumps dominanceofthe Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbents brand ofblunt nativism.And the one RepublicanHouse Representative, JustinAmash,whodiddare questionthisdominanceand in doing so became a minorcult hero threw in his hatfor the Libertarian Party ticket.

But then, alotchanged. Democratsrallied behindmoderateformer Vice-President Joe Biden, while LibertarianschoseJo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the partybuta strangerbeyond it.TheCOVID-19 pandemicthenrenderedimpossible thein-personcanvassingnecessaryto raise Jorgensens profile. And itleftlittle place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, thequestionwasnot whethergovernment interventionwasjustifiable, butratherhow much and what kind was needed.

As a result,inLibertarian candidatesfinished withjust under 1.2 percentof the vote in the 2020 election, losingnearlytwo-thirdsof theirsharecompared to 2016.

Did the2020setbackconfirm that theLibertarian spike of2016wasnot asignbut a fluke?Looking at the bigger picture,was it rash to consider thatlibertarianvoterscould becomekingmakersin US Presidentialelections?

One straightforwardresponsewas put forthimmediately after the electionbycommentatorsandpoliticianswho argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, spoiling a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgensons ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.

Thisspoiler argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and moregenerallyvoterswhoseidentificationwithlibertarian valuesrivals their loyalty toany particular party, belong, in the end,totheGOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false thatprovides a key to answering the questions set out above.TheRepublican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could pushthelions share of these same voters into the enemy camp,assuringits defeat.

Indeed, the story of 2020 is not the number of those who turned to the Libertarian ticket, but those who turned away from it, in favour of the Democrats.Among theeightmillion peoplewho voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 (half of which voted for the Libertarian Party), an overwhelming majority sided with Biden in 2020.The main indicator is thatwhile Trumps 2020 results are similar to those of 2016,Bidens are much better than Clintons in 2016.Some of these not-Clinton-but-yes-Biden votersmight be new votersor former Republicans, butexit poll surveyscorroborate the hypothesis that a significant number of 2016 Libertarian voters opted for Biden in 2020.

They did this despitethe fact thatJoe Bidenscareerrecord andelectoralcampaignstillpresenteda number of red flags for libertarians.Mostnotably, heproposedwhat could be become the mostambitious planof government spending in decades.But these concerns were evidently outweighed by the prospect of another four years of a Trump presidency. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, as onelibertarian commentatorput it, its situational, and that situation ends on January 20.

The 2020 elections showed then that theblocfrom 2016is still there and is still important, but that itspotential to determine electionscomes fromswingingfrom one party toanotherinstead of settling onand leveragingits own.

Unfortunately for libertarian-minded voters, thisleavesthem with onlyrelatively pooroptionsin future elections. There is apossibilitythat many of them will turn back to the Republican Party once it puts forth a less offensive candidate. ButtheGOPwill likely remain in thrall of thebloc that Trump forged,a bitter reality for libertarians whojust a decade ago seemed totake the reinswiththesuccess of theTea Party movement.The Democratic Party will surely keep some of the votes it won from this bloc as well.But the pressure to placate its far-left wing will likely outweigh its desire to permanently win over the moderate libertarians. And for the Libertarian Party to beanything more than a last resort,it wouldhave to prove itself capable of exactly that which it failed to do this election: rally this bloc under a common banner with a shared strategy, in so doing convincing mainstream parties that it cannot be ignored.

In the next Presidential election, theblocs voteswill likely be dividedbetween thesethree options,weakening theefficacyof eachand likelystokinga fourth option:abstention.

There is aparadox that limits the blocs potential.The same characteristics that predispose libertarians to be swing voters their pride in rational, independent behaviour,and their resistance to organised politics,if not outrightanarchism also makes them unlikely tocoordinate their actionon a large scale to optimallyleverage this position.Perhaps they could rally together through another groundswell movement like the Tea Party, not a totally fantastic scenario considering that resistance to governmentspending and restriction ofcivil liberties willsurely mount as Covid-19 recedes. Butcould this feed into an independent forcethat would break thetwo-party doom loop,withoutbeing co-opted by the general anti-establishment rage buoying the Republican Party?

Instead,Libertarian Party and independent libertarian voterswill havetosettle forgettingcreative andpickingsmallerstrategically placedbattles. We have alreadyobservedthis inthe elections for Senate, where libertariancandidates in Georgiahelped toforce two run-offs, the results of which will decide the majority. Therun-offsarestillmostly alose-losefor libertarians, butthereissurely athrill in throwinga spanner in the workingsof the major parties, especially if thisincitesthe opposition to offermore libertarian policies.AsLibertariancandidatein Georgia Shane Hazelnoted:I hope people understand that creating a run-off should be the primary mission until the party is much stronger.

Of course, the Libertarian Party can also think global, act local. In Wyoming,Marshall Burtbecame the first Libertarian to win a statehouse seatsince 2002, andthe fifthin US history. Via its Frontier Project, the Libertarian Party hopes to wina fewmore state-level seatsinNorth and South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin.There is also the possibility of winning more specific, less party-political ballots,viareferendums.In 2020,many referendumspassed seemingly libertarianproposals ondrugs, taxes, rent, voting rights,ranked-choice voting,andlabour regulations.Californian referendumsare a prime example of this, butAlaskaandColoradoare also interesting cases.

The questionofwhether the Libertarian Party or a bloc of libertarian voters emerges as a swing factor andkingmakerin future US elections will depend on the success of a project to carve a common identity and settle on a shared strategy.They could do this autonomously with their own party or by fitting into a spaceleft by one of themainstream parties.But neitherscenarioappears likely in the short-term,meaningthe battle for libertarian values will likely be waged where it has been waged best,far from the centreofthebiggestelectoral stage.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/34EqYVU

Jeffrey MichelsCollege of EuropeJeffrey Michels is a Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament and an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe,Natolincampus.

Olivier LewisCollege of EuropeOlivier has been a Research Fellow at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, since August 2019.Olivier is currently writing his first book,Security Cooperation between Western States, to be published with Routledge. He is also working on shorter publications related to counterterrorism, counterinsurgency,and Brexit.

Here is the original post:

What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. - USAPP American Politics...

My New Year’s wish for Sarasotans – Sarasota Herald-Tribune

opinion

Joe Bruno| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

As we are nearing the end of 2020 the most tumultuous year that I, a Libertarian Republican, has ever experienced in my more than seven decades onEarth what disturbs me the most is that our country, our state and our city are more divided than ever before.

In this community, for example, the extreme divides are among Democrats and Republicans, as well among conservatives and liberals. But what's most disturbing is our division on racial lines: I have lived in Sarasota for more than 25 years, and Ive seen racism rear its ugly head here much more often than I saw during nearly 50 years of living in New York City.

This sense of division didn't just happen, but it has gotten worse under the last two presidents: neither Barack Obama norDonald Trump made much of an effort to unite us. That's why we're now in a situation where even though Joe Biden clearly defeated Trump in last month's presidential election, we're still being inundated with unsubstantiated claims that the presidency has been stolen from Trump.

As a lifetime member of a members-only, nonprofit Sarasota establishment an entitythat also hasa bar that I visit on occasion I still hear people state without equivocation that Trump was robbed. These people are genuinely indignant, but when I ask them for definitive proof rather than circumstantial evidence, they only give me angry glares. I actually think that some people feel that even though I am a Republican, I'm somehow betraying my own party.

What is also disturbing is how divided we are regarding how to combat the coronavirus. Locally the rules and regulations concerning COVID-19 are different based on which jurisdiction you'rein and which political party happens to control that jurisdiction.

Sarasota County is run by the Republicans. They have issued a public advisory for people to wear masks in public if social distancing is not possible. But mask-wearing is not mandated in public outdoor spaces; restaurants in the county can mandate mask-wearing in their establishments, but they are not compelled by the county to do so.

However, the Democrats who run the city of Sarasota have applied more stringent requirements. In July the city passed an ordinance that requires face coverings be worn in indoor and outdoor public locations and businesses within the City of Sarasota" in order to help with the spread of COVID-19.

The ordinance also states, In short, if you are inside or outside a public place in the City of Sarasota, cant physically or socially distance (six feet away from others) and do not fall within one of the exceptions listed in the ordinance, you need to wear a face covering. In addition the city threatened to fine those who violated the ordinance.

But once again partisan politics came into play.

In September Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, issued an executive order that effectively cut the legs out from under the city of Sarasotas mask ordinance and suspended the collection of fines and penalties associated with COVID-19 enforced upon individuals.

So what should we Sarasotans, regardless ofour political affiliation, do to best safeguard ourselves and our families against a virus that remains deadly as we wait for widespread distribution of the vaccines to combat it?

I can't influence what others do in the communitynor is it what I would want to do.

But this is what I do.

When I go to a grocery store or a department store anywhere in Sarasota County, I always wear a mask. Yes, its uncomfortable, but thats what the business requires. So thats what I do. Why be obnoxious and cause unnecessary problemsfor the employees of that establishment?

But when it comes to restaurants, I refuse to go to any dining establishment in Sarasota County that requires me to wear a mask to come inside. I find that rule silly onceyou are seated, you can take off your mask and not be required to put it back on at any time, even when you leave the restaurant. So whats the point of the rulein the first place?

In other words, I actively respect the rights of others to remain safe without sacrificing my right to make my own choices in living my life.

It can done, and it is thiseven-handed, civil approach that I would like to see all of us embrace more often as we face COVID-19 and many other issues during the year ahead.

This is my New Year's wish for all Sarasotans.

Let's embrace the famous line that the late actor Wilford Brimley would always utter in his popular commercials for Quaker Oats years ago: Its the right thing to do.

Joe Bruno is a Sarasota resident and the author of 60 books, both fiction and nonfiction. He is also a Media Member of the Florida Boxing Hall of Fame.

Go here to see the original:

My New Year's wish for Sarasotans - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

The Recorder – My Turn: Black conservatives … excuse me? – The Recorder

Back on Aug. 8, 1976, Thomas Sowell wrote an article for The New York Times titled, A Black Conservative. His words speak of a liberal media. That rings true today. Why so one-sided?

Why are Blacks like Larry Elders, Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas not being propped up by social media? The lefty media that brings you BLM, inclusiveness and equality is the same media that doesnt give a voice to Blacks on the right. Is it because theyre Black, not left, or both? If this doesnt cause you to pause well, then, why not?

I realize that not everyone on the left believes what the extremist lefties are saying.

How is Biden going to unite the country? For the most part, the right and middle arent going to support the leftist agenda. Its the people in government who dont follow the Constitution, have agendas, create division and pick winners and losers.

So, moving to an all white neighborhood makes one a racist? Am I a racist? Ya know. This is tantamount to tossing s*** on a wall to see if it sticks. Is this the education public schools are offering?

You dont want equality. You want successful people to pay for what you want. One reader said it was envy. Its also legalized theft by the government. The left wants their way, period.

I see affirmative action as treating Blacks like a commodity. Isnt it offensive to say, your qualifications werent the best, its your skin color we need in our group.

Some of you keep insisting that Social Security is a socialist program. Some links say that, others dont. Why would you want to rely on government to fund some or all of your retirement? Some view Social Security as another form of legalized theft. No doubt, it has helped millions of people. However, what government does with that money is suspicious. We should learn to be personally responsible. Government should be accountable.

John Bos doesnt understand what capitalism truly is. Unfortunately, many on the right believe tax breaks and the government playing favorites is part capitalism as well. Thomas Sowell doesnt believe that, nor does Rep. Justin Amash in Michigan. Also, if you want to trash capitalism, as corrupted as it is, your smart phones, solar panels, electric cars, etc, etc, are all a product of capitalism.

Jim Palermo, libertarian capitalism doesnt put corporations in charge. Youre saying that to smear Libertarians. The government chooses to help corporations and picks winners and losers every day.

Some seem to have a disillusionment of what government is supposed to do. A few readers mentioned its fascism taking hold more than anything. I stand corrected. Government limiting choices of consumers.

Consumers should be able to make choices in a competitive environment that allows businesses to flourish.

Susan D. Anderson, what proof do you have the Recorder isnt printing letters from non-whites? Does the Recorder have a white-only policy? Not seeking comments from non-whites isnt racist, because my guess is the paper isnt only seeking comments from whites.

Blacks were better off before the welfare state. There were Black-only schools that did better than mostly white schools. Busing Blacks to white schools wasnt a success. Read more about those from Thomas Sowell.

Thomas Sowell examines legislation years after it passes to find the results. He talks about how liberals dont care about the effects of bad legislation. Passing a feel-good bill is what matters to liberals.

Kudos to Howard Grant, John P. ORourke, and Ruth Witty.

The Athol Daily News should have a political face-off between anyone on the left and Thomas Sowell.

Read the original post:

The Recorder - My Turn: Black conservatives ... excuse me? - The Recorder

NJ Libertarian Says 2020 Election Empowered Third-Party Voters – Patch.com

ESSEX COUNTY, NJ John Mirrione knew it was a longshot that he'd win a seat in Congress.

After all, the political neophyte was running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Donald Payne Jr., a Democratic Party stalwart in the 10th District who ended up with 241,522 votes almost six times that of the Republican nominee, Jennifer Zinone, who had 40,298.

Payne also soundly defeated independent candidates Akil Khalfani and Khaliah Fitchette, who garnered 3,537 and 3,480 votes, respectively.

When the certified results were finally in, Mirrione, the Libertarian Party nominee, stood at 1,172 votes. And at first glance, it might seem like a discouraging result for the karate expert, small business owner and U.S. Air Force veteran. But each of those ballots represents something bigger than a single campaign, he says: empowerment.

"I feel that now more than ever people were more open to a third-party viewpoint," Mirrione recently told Patch after being asked to reflect on the 2020 election.

"With the growing disparity of the democratic and republication parties, people were asking way more questions with deep overall concern of our government and its policies," Mirrione said. "This all mixed in with a media war just added to the ongoing confusion."

There's an overwhelming temptation to give in to conformity when you turn in your ballot, he said. But having the guts to vote for the candidate you think is the best choice regardless of their odds can change the status quo.

"People feel that they are forced to vote for a party line and have no control of the candidate selection," Mirrione said. "By going the third-party route, people felt more empowered to have an opportunity having more of a voice that counts in government leadership and policy."

"As a first-time candidate for Congress as a Libertarian, I felt proud that the majority of those who voted for me were a vote I earned, instead of it being a vote for a party line," Mirrione said.

When he launched his campaign, Mirrione said that no matter how the grand finale turned out, simply making the ballot was a decisive victory because it gave him a platform to spread the word about his anti-bullying work, which will continue after the election.

Drawing on his own past of being picked on while growing up in Brooklyn and Long Island, Mirrione embarked on a 17-city crusade in 2010. Digging into his own pocket for food and gas, he visited schools and YMCAs across the nation, speaking to kids about "being self-empowered, believing in themselves and knowing that anything is possible."

Soon, Mirrione found himself chatting with the likes of Deepak Chopra about his anti-bullying efforts and regimen of positive thinking.

In 2015, Mirrione formed the Harmony Power Foundation, an organization that is dedicated to "standing up to bullying and standing for human equality." Mirrione eventually scored a huge victory when the Elizabeth Public School District decided to incorporate his Harmony Power Awards program into its anti-bullying curriculum at no additional cost to the district.

Currently, Mirrione is calling for the creation of a "national anti-bullying liaison" in Washington D.C. in order to help people of all ages overcome emotional, mental and physical abuse from bullying.

"In the midst of this current political transition, we have a unique opportunity in front of us as a country," Mirrione said. "We can reaffirm our commitment to our children to raise them in a world where they don't need to be afraid where they can go about their life and become the best person they can be."

"By doing so, we might actually see there is more that unites us rather than divides us," he added.

The 10th District includes the following municipalities: Bloomfield, East Orange, Glen Ridge, Irvington, Maplewood, Montclair, Newark, Orange, South Orange, West Orange, Bayonne, Jersey City, Hillside, Linden, Rahway, Roselle, Roselle Park and Union Township.

Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com

Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site. Sign up for Patch email newsletters.

Continued here:

NJ Libertarian Says 2020 Election Empowered Third-Party Voters - Patch.com

Malachi O’Doherty: Sammy Wilson is a libertarian… but only when it suits him – Belfast Telegraph

It's tempting to wonder if history is made by stupid people as much as by clever people. The reputation of former adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, was enhanced by a television drama which presented him as a deep thinker and a deft communicator, two gifts that don't always go together.

ot that there weren't other voices ready to explain how bumping yourself out of the single market was effectively imposing sanctions on yourself, the sort of treatment we usually reserve for rogue states.

One of the qualities of a truly great leader must surely be the ability to hold fast against all derision when you are sure you are right. It is also the mark of a fanatic.

We only get to find out which term applies when the story is over and history has passed its judgment.

Fortunately, there are tests we can apply to political figures while they are still alive. Arlene Foster agitated for Brexit without foreseeing the danger of a weakening of the Union. It's hard to see how posterity will vindicate that.

Maybe foreign capital will now pour into Northern Ireland and we'll all be so rich in 10 years' time that we'll be called the Orange Tiger.

We got a nice insight into the workings of the mind of one of our conviction politicians on Any Questions on Radio 4 last week. Sammy Wilson came out as seriously sceptical of the efforts to curtail the Covid-19 virus.

He said the Government and advisers had succumbed to "Project Fear". This is a phrase that was coined to dismiss the warnings about how bad Brexit could be. Sammy applied it to the reaction to the virus. Now it's the handy phrase for mocking any doubts about any policy.

Sammy scoffed at the "deplorable way" in which old people have been left "cowering in their homes", because of measures to control a pandemic which has affected very few of us.

He didn't exactly say, "Give me liberty or give me death", but he did say that we are being kept in a state of perpetual fear to prepare us to accept curtailments on our liberty, as if he thinks the curtailment of liberty is the core objective.

His solution would have been to "protect the vulnerable and let others get on with their lives". He didn't say how that could be done without curtailing the liberties of older people. (It can't.)

Sammy is 67 years old. He is one of the vulnerable himself. I'm a bit worried about how red his cheeks are. He is a portly man.

The implications of what he says are that he himself should be removed from society, out of reach of a virus that could kill him, and that people who are less likely to die should be free to blithely infect themselves and each other.

So, on the one hand, he is saying that old people are cowering in their homes and, on the other, that that's where they would be anyway if he was in charge.

He is demanding freedom from curtailments and then endorsing curtailments.

Sammy rants a lot and yet one of his repeat themes is that we are all getting over-exercised about something or other. Like the chances of a united Ireland.

That question was a prompt for further self-contradiction. He said that the Government handling of the virus has demonstrated the merits of being part of the United Kingdom, a bigger and richer country.

I should have been on that programme. Somebody should have been there to point out that the Irish Republic's infection levels are proportionately about a quarter of those in Northern Ireland.

And how come these measures, which he dismissed minutes earlier as "deplorable", are now evidence of the merits of the Union?

Sammy builds up arguments on different issues and doesn't check whether they contradict each other. Then he did it again.

There was a question about whether electric cars will ever be affordable. Sammy said the Government's Green plan was "Stalinist".

This from the man who wanted the vulnerable to be sectioned off from the rest of society. He said he drives a diesel van and that people should have the option of driving whatever car they think they need.

So, one minute he is the social engineer who will lock up the vulnerable and the next he is a free market libertarian who would let anyone drive whatever they liked, regardless of the impact on the environment. He's a libertarian when it suits him.

If the threat is a virus, then the response should be targeted and thorough.

And if it is climate change, then everyone should do as they please.

We should have more of our local politicians on Any Questions in the hope that they will unpack their thinking, or lack of it, as candidly as Sammy did.

In the style of the programme, there is often a light question at the end. This was the week in which Barbara Windsor died. One of the clips played over and over again in the news reports showed her as the landlady in EastEnders, ordering someone out of her pub.

So, who would Sammy order out of his pub? The Chief Medical Officer. Sammy didn't remember his name. That's how much attention he has been paying to him.

The case against Professor Chris Whitty (write it on your cuff, Sammy) is that he ordered the pubs closed without having gathered sufficient evidence of the extent to which Covid-19 might be spread in them.

Some things have to be taken on faith and it seems to me that one of the easier ones to accept is that drunk people mingling in a bar and bumping against each other and shouting and blathering and squaring up to each other are more likely to spread infection than people sitting down to a meal, well spaced from each other.

You get the feeling that Sammy, when we were hit with a pandemic, would have spent a year gathering data on how it spread before taking measures against it.

I hope Sammy has a happy and restful retirement and that it starts soon. In fact, I hope the same for a lot of our politicians.

But one thing we have learnt in this strange year is that daft as some of our politicians are, they are not exceptional. There are others as daft everywhere.

Read the original post:

Malachi O'Doherty: Sammy Wilson is a libertarian... but only when it suits him - Belfast Telegraph

‘That is Orwellian’: Conservative group looks to help churches, small businesses deal with COVID crackdowns – Herald-Mail Media

EASTON Lori Roman does not hold back in her assessments of governments ramping up their enforcements of COVID-19 orders on small businesses and churches.

That includes tip lines set up by Gov. Larry Hogan as well as some local health departments and police departments encouraging residents to report neighbors and businesses who are not complying with coronavirus orders related to masks, social distancing or rules on capacities and gatherings.

We see a lot of state and county governments actively encouraging residents to snitch and each other, said Roman, who is president of the conservative American Constitutional Rights Union.

That is Orwellian, said Roman.

The conservative group started helping a Maryland church this month after it was issued an Order of Immediate Compliance by a local health department after receiving a complaint about whether social distancing and COVID mask rules.

The Community Methodist Church in Pasadena was issued the warning by the Anne Arundel County Health Department after receiving a complaint about whether face coverings were being worn during services and there was handshaking, high-fives and fist bumps by the congregation.

The Anne Arundel Health Department told The Star Democrat earlier this month that the church was not fined or sanctioned and that the complaint was closed after a follow-up visit by a health inspector.

Still, Roman does not like the idea of county health inspectors or police coming to churches to enforce COVID-19 orders.

Churches have very special protections in the Constitution and worship should not be infringed upon, she said in an interview with The Star Democrat.

The Florida-based conservative libertarian group is ramping up its advocacy for churches and small businesses in Maryland, including on the Eastern Shore, Roman said.

She also worries about local health departments in Maryland and other states presuming churches, restaurants and small businesses are guilty of violating COVID orders simply because they received a complaint.

Thats un-American, she said.

In response to rising reported COVID-19 cases, deaths and hospitalizations after the November election, Hogan pressed for more enforcement of the states pandemic orders requiring masks be worn indoors in public places as well as outdoors.

The governor and public health officials say the COVID orders and enforcement will help curb the spread of the virus.

Maryland has reported 5,152 deaths attributed to the coronavirus this year. There are currently 1,702 patients hospitalized for COVID statewide, according to Maryland Department of Health figures on Thursday, Dec. 17.

Roman said the COVID tip lines create a dangerous precedent for civil and religious liberties. What Orwellian world have we come to where a government official shows up at a church because a snitch said two church members shook hands, she said.

The governor also dispatched the Maryland State Police and pressed local police to do compliance checks to see if restaurants, bars and other businesses were abiding by coronavirus orders.

A COVID tip line was also established by the state police.

Top state health officials including Acting Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services Dr. Jinlene Chan and senior state medical advisor Dr. David Marcozzi have said masks and social distancing will still be required into next year even as they urge residents to get new COVID vaccines.

That is because there will be residents who will not want to get vaccinated.

There has been increasing resistance to state and local orders across the country restricting church capacities and shutting down restaurant dining while other types of businesses remain open and other types of gatherings such as progressive political protests have not been restricted or chastised.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against an order from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that restricted religious services but not some other businesses.

Roman also points to Maryland and other states releasing some prison inmates early to protect them from COVID while local health departments are warning churches about social distancing.

Its an upside down world, she said.

See the original post:

'That is Orwellian': Conservative group looks to help churches, small businesses deal with COVID crackdowns - Herald-Mail Media

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: Author Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling on the Free State Project – Vox.com

Every ideology produces its own brand of fanatics, but theres something special about libertarianism.

I dont mean that as an insult, either. I love libertarians! For the most part, theyre fun and interesting people. But they also tend to be cocksure about core principles in a way most people arent. If youve ever encountered a freshly minted Ayn Rand enthusiast, you know what I mean.

And yet one of the things that makes political philosophy so amusing is that its mostly abstract. You cant really prove anything its just a never-ending argument about values. Every now and again, though, reality intervenes in a way that illustrates the absurdity of particular ideas.

Something like this happened in the mid-2000s in a small New Hampshire town called Grafton. Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling, author of a new book titled A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, says its the boldest social experiment in modern American history. I dont know if its the boldest, but its definitely one of the strangest.

The experiment was called the Free Town Project (it later became the Free State Project), and the goal was simple: take over Graftons local government and turn it into a libertarian utopia. The movement was cooked up by a small group of ragtag libertarian activists who saw in Grafton a unique opportunity to realize their dreams of a perfectly logical and perfectly market-based community. Needless to say, utopia never arrived, but the bears did! (I promise Ill explain below.)

I reached out to Hongoltz-Hetling to talk about his book. I wanted to know what happened in New Hampshire, why the experiment failed, and what the whole saga can teach us not just about libertarianism but about the dangers of loving theory more than reality.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

How would you describe the Free Town Project to someone who doesnt know anything about it?

Id put it like this: Theres a national community of libertarians that has developed over the last 40 or 50 years, and theyve never really had a place to call their own. Theyve never been in charge of a nation, or a state, or even a city. And theyve always really wanted to create a community that would showcase what would happen if they implemented their principles on a broad scale.

So in 2004, a group of them decided that they wanted to take some action on this deficiency, and they decided to launch what they called the Free Town Project. They sent out a call to a bunch of loosely affiliated national libertarians and told everyone to move to this one spot and found this utopian community that would then serve as a shining jewel for the world to see that libertarian philosophies worked not only in theory but in practice. And they chose a town in rural New Hampshire called Grafton that already had fewer than 1,000 people in it. And they just showed up and started working to take over the town government and get rid of every rule and regulation and tax expense that they could.

Of all the towns in all the world, why Grafton?

They didnt choose it in a vacuum. They actually conducted a very careful and thorough search. They zeroed in on the state of New Hampshire fairly quickly because thats the Live Free or Die state. They knew that it would align well with their philosophy of individualism and personal responsibility. But once they decided on New Hampshire, they actually visited dozens of small towns, looking for that perfect mix of factors that would enable them to take over.

What they needed was a town that was small enough that they could come up and elbow the existing citizenry, someplace where land was cheap, where they could come in and buy up a bunch of land and kind of host their incoming colonists. And they wanted a place that had no zoning, because they wanted to be able to live in nontraditional housing situations and not have to go through the rigamarole of building or buying expensive homes or preexisting homes.

Wait, what do you mean by nontraditional housing?

As the people of Grafton soon found out, a nontraditional housing situation meant a camp in the woods or a bunch of shipping containers or whatever. They brought in yurts and mobile homes and formed little clusters of cabins and tents. There was one location called Tent City, where a bunch of people just lived in tents from day to day. They all united under this broad umbrella principle of personal freedom, but as youd expect, there was a lot of variation in how they exercised it.

What did the demographics of the group look like? Are we talking mostly about white guys or Ayn Rand bros who found each other on the internet?

Well, were talking about hundreds of people, though the numbers arent all that clear. They definitely skewed male. They definitely skewed white. Some of them had a lot of money, which gave them the freedom to be able to pick up roots and move to a small town in New Hampshire. A lot of them had very little money and nothing keeping them in their places. So they were able to pick up and come in. But most of them just didnt have those family situations or those 9-to-5 jobs, and that was really what characterized them more than anything else.

And how did they take over the local government? Did they meet much resistance?

When they first showed up, they hadnt told anyone that they were doing this, with the exception of a couple of sympathetic libertarians within the community. And so all of a sudden the people in Grafton woke up to the fact that their town was in the process of being invaded by a bunch of idealistic libertarians. And they were pissed. They had a big town meeting. It was a very shouty, very angry town meeting, during which they told the Free Towners who dared to come that they didnt want them there and they didnt appreciate being treated as if their community was an experimental playpen for libertarians to come in and try to prove something.

But the libertarians, even though they never outnumbered the existing Grafton residents, what they found was that they could come in, and they could find like-minded people, traditional conservatives or just very liberty-oriented individuals, who agreed with them on enough issues that, despite that angry opposition, they were able to start to work their will on the levers of government.

They couldnt pass some of the initiatives they wanted. They tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from the school district and to completely discontinue paying for road repairs, or to declare Grafton a United Nations free zone, some of the outlandish things like that. But they did find that a lot of existing Grafton residents would be happy to cut town services to the bone. And so they successfully put a stranglehold on things like police services, things like road services and fire services and even the public library. All of these things were cut to the bone.

Then what happened over the next few years or so?

By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a towns success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The towns legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.

So there were all sorts of negative consequences that started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldnt put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didnt have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle.

Basically, Grafton became a Wild West, frontier-type town.

When did the bears show up?

It turns out that if you have a bunch of people living in the woods in nontraditional living situations, each of which is managing food in their own way and their waste streams in their own way, then youre essentially teaching the bears in the region that every human habitation is like a puzzle that has to be solved in order to unlock its caloric payload. And so the bears in the area started to take notice of the fact that there were calories available in houses.

One thing that the Free Towners did that encouraged the bears was unintentional, in that they just threw their waste out how they wanted. They didnt want the government to tell them how to manage their potential bear attractants. The other way was intentional, in that some people just started feeding the bears just for the joy and pleasure of watching them eat.

As you can imagine, things got messy and there was no way for the town to deal with it. Some people were shooting the bears. Some people were feeding the bears. Some people were setting booby traps on their properties in an effort to deter the bears through pain. Others were throwing firecrackers at them. Others were putting cayenne pepper on their garbage so that when the bears sniffed their garbage, they would get a snout full of pepper.

It was an absolute mess.

Were talking about black bears specifically. For the non-bear experts out there, black bears are not known to be aggressive toward humans. But the bears in Grafton were ... different.

Bears are very smart problem-solving animals. They can really think their way through problems. And that was what made them aggressive in Grafton. In this case, a reasonable bear would understand that there was food to be had, that it was going to be rewarded for being bolder. So they started aggressively raiding food and became less likely to run away when a human showed up.

There are lots of great examples in the book of bears acting in bold, unusually aggressive manners, but it culminated in 2012, when there was a black bear attack in the town of Grafton. That might not seem that unusual, but, in fact, New Hampshire had not had a black bear attack for at least 100 years leading up to that. So the whole state had never seen a single bear attack, and now here in Grafton, a woman was attacked in her home by a black bear.

And then, a few years after that, a second woman was attacked, not in Grafton but in a neighboring town. And since the book was written and published, theres actually been a third bear attack, also in the same little cluster and the same little region of New Hampshire. And I think its very clear that, unless something changes, more bear attacks will come.

Luckily, no ones been killed, but people have been pretty badly injured.

Youre fair, even sympathetic, to the libertarians you profile in this book, but I do wonder if you came to see them increasingly as fanatics.

You know, libertarian is such a weird umbrella term for a very diverse group of people. Some libertarians are built around the idea of white supremacy and racism. That was not the case with these libertarians. Most of the libertarians that I met were kind, decent people who would be generous with a neighbor in any given moment. But in the abstract, when theyre at a town meeting, they will vote to hurt that neighbor by cutting off, say, support for road plowing.

So I guess what I noticed is a strange disconnect between their personalities or their day-to-day interactions and the broader implications of their philosophies and their political movement. Not sure Id use the word fanatic, but definitely a weird disconnect.

Theres a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, youll have to distort or ignore reality to do it usually with terrible consequences.

Yeah, I think thats true for libertarianism and really all philosophies of life. Its very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Did any of the characters in this story come to doubt their libertarianism as a result of what happened in Grafton? Or was it mostly a belief that libertarianism cant fail, it can only be failed?

One of the central characters in the book is a firefighter named John Babiarz. And John had the distinction of running for the governor of New Hampshire on the libertarian platform, and did better than any other gubernatorial libertarian candidate has ever done in America. And he invited the libertarians to come in and begin the Free Town Project. He was their local connection.

But by the end of the project [sometime in 2016], he had really drawn some distinctions between himself and many of the extremist libertarians who came to town. He still considers himself to be a libertarian, and a very devout one at that, but by the end of the project he was at odds with most of the other libertarians. And it shows that until you actually have a libertarian-run community, its very hard to say what it is or what it will look like.

In the end, do you think these people bumped up against the limits of libertarianism, or is this more about the particular follies of a particular group of people in a particular place?

I think they bumped up against the follies of libertarianism. I really do think that there is a hard wall of reality that exists thats going to foil any effort to implement libertarianism on a broad scale. And I think if you gave a libertarian the magic wand and allowed them to transform society the way that they wanted to, it wouldnt work the way they imagined, and I think it would break down just as Grafton did.

Maybe thats the lesson.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

There is tremendous power in understanding. Vox answers your most important questions and gives you clear information to help make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. A financial contribution to Vox will help us continue providing free explanatory journalism to the millions who are relying on us. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

Read the original post:

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: Author Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling on the Free State Project - Vox.com

Thoughts on the National Constitution Center’s "Constitution Drafting Project" – Reason

The National Constitution Center recently conducted a fascinating exercise in which it named three groups to produce their own revised versions of the Constitution: a conservative team, a libertarian team, and a progressive one. Each team included prominent scholars and legal commentators affiliated with their respective camps. Here is the list of participants:

Team libertarian was led byIlya Shapiroof the Cato Institute and includedTimothy Sandefurof the Goldwater Institute andChristina Mulliganof Brooklyn Law School. Team progressive was led byCaroline Fredricksonof Georgetown Law School and includedJamal Greeneof Columbia Law School andMelissa Murrayof New York University School of Law. Team conservative was led byIlan Wurmanof Arizona State University College of Law and includedRobert P. Georgeof Princeton University,Michael McConnellof Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan ofArizona State University.

It is perhaps worth noting that Caroline Frederickson is the former president of the American Constitution Society (liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society), and that libertarian team leader Ilya Shapiro is a different person from me.

Each team produced a rewritten version of the Constitution, and an introduction explaining the changes they made from the status quo. The Progressive Constitution and Introduction are available here, the conservative versions are here, and the libertarian ones here.

There are importantand often unsurprisingdifferences between the three teams. But there are also notable points of convergence. NCC President Jeffrey Rosen summarizes some of them in an Atlantic article on the project:

The results surprised us. As expected, each of the three teams highlights different values: The team of conservatives emphasizes Madisonian deliberation; the progressives, democracy and equality; and the libertarians, unsurprisingly, liberty. But when the groups delivered their Constitutionswhich are published hereall three proposed to reform the current Constitution rather than abolish it.

Even more unexpectedly, they converge in several of their proposed reforms, focusing on structural limitations on executive power rather than on creating new rights. All three teams agree on the need to limit presidential power, explicitly allow presidential impeachments for non-criminal behavior, and strengthen Congress's oversight powers of the president. And, more specifically, the progressive and conservative teams converge on the need to elect the president by a national popular vote (the libertarians keep the Electoral College); to resurrect Congress's ability to veto executive actions by majority vote; and to adopt 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. The unexpected areas of agreement suggest that, underneath the country's current political polarization, there may be deep, unappreciated consensus about constitutional principles and needed reforms.

As Rosen points out, the libertarian team may well also agree on 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, which they omitted from their draft constitution only for tactical reasons (because they wanted to focus on specifically libertarian proposals, as opposed to generic "good government" measures). Elsewhere, team leader Ilya Shapiro has endorsed the idea, and it enjoys considerable support among other libertarian legal scholars and commentators (myself included).

In addition to the points of convergence highlighted by Rosen, it's worth noting that all three teams would abolish the Eleventh Amendment, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as giving states broad "sovereign immunity" against a variety of constitutional and statutory lawsuits brought by private citizens. The conservative constitution puts it best, I think, in proposing to replace sovereign immunity with an explicit statement that "Neither the United States nor any State shall enjoy immunity from suit in the courts of the United States."

Yet another point of agreement is that all three teams would abolish the requirement that the president must be a "natural born" citizen, thereby allowing immigrants to hold the nation's highest political office. This has long been my own view, as well.

It is too early to say that these areas of agreement can result in successful constitutional amendments. The obstacles to enacting any significant amendment are high, and the three teams' views are not fully representative of their respective political camps. Nonetheless, the points of convergence between the three teams are at least plausible candidates for amendment initiatives which deserve serious consideration.

All three proposed drafts include useful ideas aside from those on which there is convergence. The conservative and libertarian constitutions both contain valuable (though different) constraints on federal spending. The conservative version also forestall court-packing by fixing the number of justices at nine, and proposes a ranked-choice voting method for the presidency that might well be an improvement over the status quo.

The progressive constitution includes thoughtful proposals for forestall gerrymandering by requiring legislative districts to be drawn by independent commissions, banning discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, and protecting secular exercises of conscience on the same basis as free exercise of religion. Interestingly, the progressive drafters chose not to follow the example of left-liberal constitutional drafters in other countries by including a variety of "positive" welfare rights in their draft (a decision I commend, though some of their ideological allies might not agree).

Perhaps not surprisingly, I am most in agreement with the libertarian draft constitution. Indeed, I agree with that team's work even more than I expected to, based on what I previously knew of their views.

I particularly commend their "Ellis Island Clause" (which would sweep away most federal immigration restrictions, thereby returning us to something like the original meaning of the current Constitution, as understood by Madison and others) their expansion and clarification of the Fifth Amendment's protections for property rights, and the modification of the Thirteenth Amendment to include an explicit ban on the military draft and other forms of mandatory service imposed by the state. I defended the latter idea in my 2018 testimony before the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.

I am disappointed that none of the three teamsnot even the libertariansthought to limit Congress' nearly unconstrained power to restrict international trade, the harm of which has been compounded by ill-advised legislation giving the president the power to impose tariffs on almost any foreign-produced goods he might wish to target. This issue is high on my list of "Things I Hate About the Constitution"areas where even the most correct possible interpretation of the present Constitution leads to bad outcomes. The libertarian draft does include useful provisions reigning in the Supreme Court's expansive interpretations of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but does not address the power to regulate international commerce, which is subject to many of the same abuses.

Obviously, I also differ with the teams on various issues, particularly the conservatives and progressives. I oppose the progressives' proposals to exempt a wide swathe of campaign finance restrictions from the First Amendment, and their plan to give Congress a new power to "legislate for the general welfare, insofar as such action is necessary to address problems that are national in scope, and that are unlikely to be addressed adequately by state or local governments." I also find troubling their proposal (inspired by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think), to create a general exemption from all constitutional rights for legislation "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." I fear this provision will exacerbate the already problematic tendency of courts and legislatures to carve out exemptions from constitutional rights, especially when they don't especially like the right in question, when the legislation at issue conforms to their ideological proclivities or some combination of both.

When it comes to the conservative constitution, I am not convinced by their elaborate proposal to restructure the Senate, or by their endorsement of Alexander Hamilton's approach to the spending power over James Madison's. I think Madison's more limited view (largely endorsed by the libertarian team), is preferable.

While I have few disagreements with the changes made by the libertarian drafters, I do think they were wrong to dispense with the Seventeenth Amendment, which made the Senate directly elected, as opposed to chosen by state legislatures. The team is probably right to think that eliminating the Seventeenth Amendment probably wouldn't change much, as most state legislatures would essentially delegate senatorial selection to popular vote anyway. That had already happened in all but a few states before the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment. But if little would change, and that little would not be an improvement, I see no reason to change the current rule in the first place. I discussed this issue in greater detail in a 2011 debate with co-blogger Todd Zywicki.

Much more can be said about all three teams' proposals. What I cover above only scratches the surface of the many interesting ideas and issues they raise.

I doubt that any these proposals will actually be enacted any time soon. Even the ideas the three teams agree on would face an uphill struggle in the constitutional amendment process. Still, it is clear that at least some aspects of the Constitution can use reform. The National Constitution Center and its three teams have made a valuable contribution to the discussion of these issues. I hope others can build on it!

UPDATE: I have updated this post to include the point that all three teams would abolish the requirement that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. I defended that position myself in various writings, most recently a USA Today op ed coauthored with Harvard law Professor Randall Kennedy.

Continue reading here:

Thoughts on the National Constitution Center's "Constitution Drafting Project" - Reason

The Republican Party of Amanda Chase Bearing Drift – Bearing Drift

Its hard to belong to the Republican Party because of Donald Trump and Corey Stewart. Its impossible to belong to the Republican Party ofSidney PowellandLin Wood.

It is impossible to belong to the Republican Party of Amanda Chase who has more in common with your average Republican than she does with Abraham Lincoln, Edmund Burke, or Calvin Coolidge. State Senator Amanda Chase has brilliantly and cynically chosen to encapsulate the spirit of mass hysteria, of an actual mental health crisis, in order to rise to power.

If she follows through on her threat to run as an Independent, itll either be the final waning of her star or a death blow to the RPV. The white nationalist populists will support primaries now after years of demanding a convention. Establishment folks switched their votes to conventions. At least we can all ignore principled arguments for one or the other and accept that either side will choose the likeliest path to victory.

To my Chamber of Commerce Republican friends, Senator Amanda Chase better reflects the average Republican voter in Virginia than you do. Some of this is my fault.

I moved to Virginia with libertarian principles and came in contact with TEA Party leaders like Waverly Woods. I wrote vociferously on behalf of Congressman Dave Brat against Eric Cantor.

I warned Brat against Trumpism, but he was smarter than I was. He knew he couldnt stand on principle against the Trumpers and survive. Trump flipped enough educated white voters to the Democrats to destroy a Republicans chances in the 7thDistrict.

Even a once staunchly libertarian candidate like Nick Freitas, who went all-in on his bizarre support for an authoritarian like Donald Trump, was unable to pull off a victory there. I will say that I am beyond pleased to see Delegate Freitas Facebook feed return to the poised, principled, libertarian and constitutionalist tone I had grown so accustomed to.

What the Trumpublican Party represents and what your Republican Party now is, is a monster with no morality, no philosophy, no reality, and no core. It can evolve and change, shift and morph, acclimate itself to whatever fake QAnon conspiracy is in fashion for a split second on the internet. How can you compete?

These people dont believe the media. They dont believe the scientists. They dont believe the experts or the political or bureaucratic class. They dont believe in anything except skeptical, radical disbelief. These are realities that a theologian, philosopher, and economist like Dave Brat couldnt harness. There was no way someone as educated as he could hold the hearts of those so opposed to education as they.

People like Shaun Kenney and Brian Schoeneman tried to warn me and I laughed at them. Lee Pillsbury has been asking me to write an apology letter to Eric Cantor for years. Im not sorry for supporting Congressman Brat, but I am sorry that his campaign spawned a populist movement that proceeded to wreck the foundations of the Republican Party in Virginia.

At the time, I figured they were just more mindless examples of the corporatist duopoly trying to make money off of a corporately driven Republican Party. I didnt listen. Im still not sure I was wrong about their motivations, but Im 100 percent certain they were right about me.

I didnt know what I was talking about. I didnt know who I was working with. I didnt see the nationalist and populist undertones of my friends in the TEA Party movement. Just about everything they told me was happening, happened. And I mocked them for it. I laughed at them because they saw me and the movement I had associated myself with more clarity than I saw myself.

Wow was I wrong!

Im sorry.

I dont and wont support the corporate Republicans. I wont support trickle-down economics. I feel as though there really is something harmful to big government supporting big business while the little guy gets left behind. But let me admit this, to all my libertarian-leaning friends still trying to make something of their involvement in the Republican Party: If you think that you can work with these nationalists and populists and faux conservatives and keep your freedom, retain your self-respect, and support liberty, then you are me five years ago reading an article written by you five years from now.

Wake up.

These people deprived us of Dave Brat. These people deprived us of Denver Riggleman. These people have cost us statewide election after statewide election, and Im not coming back.

However. Im over 40. You dont need me. You need young people. Dont keep making the same mistakes. Dont keep embracing hysteria. Embrace reason, science, good government, good policy, and for the love of God be smarter than the other guys. You probably already are!

Steven Brodie Tucker is a Senior Contributor at Bearing Drift.

More here:

The Republican Party of Amanda Chase Bearing Drift - Bearing Drift

‘This Election Is a Joke,’ Insists Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Andy Biggs – Reason

There's a parlor trick that libertarians who interact with Capitol Hill sometimes play among themselves, and it usually goes something like this:

Besides the usual suspectsusually understood to be Reps. Justin Amash (LMich.) and Thomas Massie (RKy.) and Sens. Rand Paul (RKy.) and Mike Lee (RUtah)are there any good ones left?

"Let me give you a name of somebody who's come to Congress and really surprised us," Massie told me two years ago. "Andy Biggs from Arizona. If you see two No's on a bill; it's 428 to 2, the two No's will be most often me and Justin Amash. If you see three, it's now Andy Biggs. He's doing it on a constitutional basis. He recognizes when the Republicans are voting for bigger government, and he doesn't fall for it."

Biggs, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, has a 100 percent rating from the limited-government outfit FreedomWorks. He's a reliable vote against federal spending increases, against warrantless surveillance, and in favor of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He recently became the first GOP member of Congress to support declaring a formal end to the Korean War.

So how is Biggs taking President-elect Joe Biden's victory? By calling Republicans who acknowledge it "Neville Chamberlain's" (sic) who keep "feeding the totalitarian monster, hoping to be eaten last." Such florid language was not an outlier. Here's the top of Biggs's post-election piece for Townhall:

The fierce beast of the Left, the omnivorous viper of the Democrats, has been let loose. Every tyrant needs quislings. Unfortunately, there are appeasers even among Republicans. The 'useful idiots' of the Left are being eaten already; the appeasers will be next.

Those who demand grace from Trump supporters as we watch the nation stolen from us, deny the peril from a ravenous beast that will consume our freedoms and chain the American people.

The passage of days, and the repeated disintegration of the president's conspiracy theories upon contact with the legal system, did nothing to dull Biggs's Trumpian fervor. "This election is a joke," he declared in a video with Rep. Paul Gosar (RAriz.). Watch:

"FACT CHECK: Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar still touting baseless election-fraud claims," went the Arizona Republic headline (and please do click on the links therein before pre-emptively waving that conclusion away).

In a Washington Times piece Monday, Biggs made the improbable assertion that, "The foundation for the future that Mr.Trumplaid appears to be so strong that the only way to defeat it is to lay waste to any vestige of Americanism and our institutions. And that includes resorting to cheating to try and disenfranchise more than 70 million voters."

Hyperbolic overselling of my-team Potency and their-team Evil is of course not uncommon in politics, even if it's a bit amusing coming from someone fond of using "Derangement Syndrome" as an insult. But Biggs's post-election performance can be read as a cautionary tale about the limits of what might be called "Libertarian Populism" within a Trumpified GOP.

Faced with a crude, big-government nationalist, some office-holding libertarian-leaners of a more temperate dispositionnamely, Amash and former Sen. Jeff Flakechose exit rather than continuing to lose arguments within and face voter hostility from without. Those who remainedMassie, Paul, Biggstend to derive visceral enjoyment from slinging the political bull and coloring outside the lines.

Paul and Massie are considerably more likely to ape Trump's language and selectively amplify his complaints about the Deep State, Fake News Media, and Swamp. And the House Freedom Caucusco-founded by Amash!has long since abandoned its original purpose as a check on executive power in favor of running Trump-protection, even to the distraction of holding the line on spending.

To the extent that there will be any libertarian values in a post-Trump GOP, they will be transmitted via Twitter-firehose from populists like Biggs: anti-war and anti-mask ("Seeing Fauci & Birx at the White House podium yet again brings back months of memories of their work to destroy American freedom and our society as we knew it," he tweeted this week), pro-border wall and pro-Section 230-rewrite.

The congressman's career arc in the age of Trump has drawn some negative reviews. "The descent of U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs into becoming just another partisan brawler has been painful, and disappointing, to watch," concluded Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb. "Biggs has the talent, and had the opportunity, to be more than that." More from Robb:

As president of the Arizona Senate, Biggs was themost influential state legislator since Burton Barr, the House majority leader for two decades, from 1966 to 1986.

In Congress, he became apublic thought leader for conservatives.His commentary was forceful and sometimes biting. But it had some intellectual depth and focused mostly on substantive policy issues. It was generally more ideological than partisan, serving as much to influence the Republican position as to skewer the Democrats.

But: "With the defeat of Trump in the presidential election, Biggs has gone around the bend."

Biggs, obviously, has a different interpretation: that Trumpism is just getting started, bay-bee. From his Washington Times column:

While the left-wing media apparatus is giddy because to them the election looks like a smackdown of Mr.Trump, they are missing the fact that the president has remodeled the Republican Party and built an infrastructure that can be quite enduring. In fact, it is ironic that the Trump Party is emerging as the most potent force in American politics. It overcame seemingly endless amounts of money for its opponents, a cacophony of hateful media coverage and censorship of its message, and ultimately, what appears to be systemic cheating.

I wish Biggs all the success in the world in persuading the GOP to be more anti-war, anti-surveillance, and anti-spending. And I hope those values are not discredited by their association with partisan conspiracy-mongering.

See more here:

'This Election Is a Joke,' Insists Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Andy Biggs - Reason

Letter to the editor: Biden win is a threat to our liberties – TribLIVE

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original:

Letter to the editor: Biden win is a threat to our liberties - TribLIVE

A record 3 million Hoosiers voted in the 2020 election – IndyStar

Indiana voters supported Republican President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election with nearly 59% of the ballots with three-quarters of the vote counted. Here's how the state has voted in the past. Wochit

A record 3 million Hoosiers cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 election, according to turnout data released Tuesday by the Indiana secretary of state's office.

Sixty-five percent of the state's 4.7 million voters wanted a say in the top-of-the-ticket race between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, higher than any presidential election since Bill Clinton unseated President George H.W. Bush in 1992. That year 74% of registered Hoosiers voted.

Although Biden won the presidential election nationwide with 306 electoral votes, Trump carried Indiana 57% to 41%.

We continue to see that candidates and issues drive turnout,Secretary of State Connie Lawson said in a prepared statement. Presidential elections tend to have higher turnout rates."

Here are the number of Hoosiers who voted in the past five presidentialelections:

Hamilton County and Wells County had the highest turnout at 75%.Greene, Hancock and Whitley counties followed at 74 percent.

A Congressional race played a pivotal role in the high turnout in Hamilton County.Republican Victoria Spartz defeated Democrat Christina Hale for an open seat that drew national attention and millions of dollars in spending.

Elsewhere in the area, Boone and Hendricks counties were at 72%, Johnson at 70% and Marion at 59%.

An unprecedented 61% of registered Hoosier voters 1.9 million cast their ballots absentee amid the coronavirus pandemic. In the June primary, 51% of registered voters, or552,779 people, voted absentee.

In the last presidential election, 33% voted absentee. In 2012, 22% voted absentee.

Locally, Boone County had 84% vote absentee, Hancock had 82%, Johnson had 79%, Hamilton had 73%, Hendricks had 68% and Marion had 55%.

Gov. Eric Holcomb easily was reelected with 56.5% of the vote. Democratic challenger Woody Myers had 32.1% and Libertarian Donald Rainwater had 11.4%, the highest that party has ever received in a gubernatorial runin Indiana.

Libertarians typically receive3% to 4% in that race.

Rainwater wasn't quite the most successful Libertarian ever to run in Indiana. That record goes toSteve Osborn, who collected 12.6% of the votein the 2006 U.S. Senate race against Richard Lugar when no Democrat ran.

In a more typical three-way race, Andrew Horning has the Indianarecord for a Libertarian candidate inthe 2012 U.S. Senate race. He had 5.6% that year.

Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at 317-444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisSikich.

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/24/indiana-elections-2020-record-3-million-hoosiers-cast-their-vote/6412265002/

More:

A record 3 million Hoosiers voted in the 2020 election - IndyStar

How Trump Pushed Third-Party Voters To Choose Biden In 2020 – KJZZ

STEVE GOLDSTEIN: When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, one of the key reasons may have simply been the impact of third-party candidates like Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. In 2020, the effect is less clear, but Jo Jorgensen, this year's Libertarian nominee, got 1.84 million votes nationally. Did that help decide any states in Joe Biden's favor? And what's the outlook for third parties more generally? To talk about that, I'm joined by Matt Welch. He's editor-at-large for Reason. So, Matt, how would you compare Jo Jorgensen's impact with what we saw from Stein and Johnson in 2016?

MATT WELCH: The biggest impact the third-party voters had in 2020 is perversely not in voting for the third party in 2020. By which I mean, it's what happened to Gary Johnson voters and Jill Stein voters from 2016. What did those people do? Because the total third-party vote back in 2016 was about 7.8 million people. That's a lot. This time it's going to end up at around 2.6, 2.7 million. Those 5 million people went somewhere. And what we have discovered both in looking at pre-election polls and with the usual grain of salt about polls but also in the results everywhere. Like, state after state, Donald Trump got basically the same percentage give or take a few states that he did last time. But he didn't add any of those voters. Those voters went overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. So that's the biggest impact that they had. Jo Jorgensen, who's not a very well-known person at all, a Clemson University psychology lecturer, she did the second-best result in the history of the Libertarian Party, which, granted, they don't have a history of doing exceedingly well. But that's 1.2%, which is bigger than much higher named candidates, including Gary Johnson back in 2012 Gary Johnson had been a successful two-term governor. So that suggests that the people who at this point stay in the Libertarian Party, they might just be kind of Libertarians at this point. There's a, there is a permanent vote that's larger than it used to be in that party right now. The impact on the race is more, however, about where the kind of spike vote in third party interest it was the highest in 20 years in 2016 where those votes went. They did not go for Donald Trump, they did not like Donald Trump.

GOLDSTEIN: So can we make the assumption that the five million or so people of those folks who ended up going for Biden, did they go for Biden for the same reason it seems a lot of folks who were independents did? They were just a little bit sick of the Trump drama, the Trump rhetoric?

WELCH: Yeah, I think that is completely safe to say. I mean, if you think about voted for Gary Johnson-Bill Weld in 2016, there were, by definition, people who didn't want to vote for, for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, in this case. Joe Biden, for his margin of victory I mean, think about it. He's going to beat Donald Trump by about 6 million votes. The difference in third party votes is about 5 million votes. I mean, you could it's not the same people and don't make that that mistake but still, you can't help but notice that overlap. So he will depend, his margin of victory depends on voters who were not enthusiastic necessarily about his platform to the extent they knew anything about it at all. It's people who did not like Donald Trump either his policies, you know, if they're libertarian voters, they probably don't like Donald Trump's authoritarian tendencies, his immigration policies, his anti-free trade policies, his big government policies he expanded government faster than Barack Obama did, measured by dollars. So they probably didn't like any of that. But mostly it's they just don't like the chaos, don't like the guy. So that is not a mandate for a Green New Deal necessarily for those people. Maybe Green Party voters who are voting for him want the Green New Deal. But I think it's more an anti-Trump vote and a sign that Trump was able to grow his vote but not grow his percentage just because it was a bigger election. He couldn't convince people outside of the tent to come in for him.

GOLDSTEIN: So Matt, what moves the momentum, what moves the needle forward for whatever non-Republican or Democrat out there when it comes to running for president, let's say the next time around? Is there more of an open field as we see that a lot of folks voted for Joe Biden simply because they didn't really like Donald Trump or thought Biden was likable but we didn't like his policies, whatever it may be? Does it take where we're at right now in 2020, the fact that, frankly, a lot of people 2016 this goes as well people were not that excited about the two major party candidates. Does that move the needle at all toward not getting a third party candidate with Ross Perot-level percentages, but at least something that really has an impact across the country, not just in select states?

WELCH: A lot of it will depend on what kind of implosion happens or does not happen in both parties, right? The Republican Party is going through its last Trumpism spasm, and we'll see how long that lasts. Could be a long time, who knows? The Democratic Party is always willing to have some kind of, you know, moderate versus [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] AOC fight, the Bernie Bros versus the moderates. That could happen as well, and that will impact it. The thing to think about it: 2018 midterms, which is the highest turnout midterms in 100 years, was terrible. It was a wipeout for all third parties and independent candidates. They undershot their polling by so much. Why? Because when you when you really think that the opposing team is going to do horrible things or are just horrible people themselves, you vote for the people to vanquish them, regardless of your lack of affection for the people that you were voting for. So how do you break that cycle? This is one reason why I argue that Jo Jorgensen's total this year is damn impressive. One point two percent. OK, it's tiny. But the fact that she's an unknown person outside of the Libertarian Party and not particularly well-known within says that at least there's, there's some vote there. I know for a fact that people like Justin Amash, the congressman from, from Michigan who became the first Libertarian congressman this year when he switched parties. He was thinking about running for president. And part of the reason why he did not this time around was because the field, the backdrop was so bad. So if the backdrop becomes good, if major parties are engaging in some kind of off-putting civil war amongst themselves, then that opens the space for people with much higher name recognition and, and much better kind of political skill, including a Justin Amash character in that case for the Libertarian Party, but other people for the Greens or others, to open the door for something that expands broader. But it's hard. We have a two-party system.

GOLDSTEIN: Matt Welch is editor-at-large of Reason. Matt, appreciate the time.

WELCH: Thank you very much.

See original here:

How Trump Pushed Third-Party Voters To Choose Biden In 2020 - KJZZ