Josh Hawley is dead right about men and marriage – Washington Examiner

Of all the speeches at this months National Conservatism Conference, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawleys call for men to abandon video games and pornography for work and family has drawn the most attention.

The Washington Post, NPR, and Axios all followed up with stories questioning Hawleys premise: that through policy choices and cultural messages, the Left has devalued men and weakened the nation.

The Washington Posts coverage by Christine Emba was the most encouraging as Emba readily admitted that increasing numbers of men are disconnected from their work, families and children. And that mens labor force participation has fallen from 80 percent in 1970 to 68 percent in 2021. And that more men are deciding to opt out of higher education. And even that pornography is a problem.

Embas only real beef with Hawley appears to be that he should be pressed to offer solutions.

But Hawley did!

We must rebuild an economy in this country in which men can thrive. And that means rebuilding those manufacturing and production sectors that so much of the chattering class has written off as relics of the past, Hawley said before offering a policy solution. We can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies critical for our national security be made in the United States.

Hawley then moved to tax policy, noting, We must make the family the center of political life. There is no higher calling, and no greater duty, than raising a family. And we should encourage all men to pursue it.

I believe the time has come for explicit rewards in our tax code for marriage. Forget the marriage penalty. There should be a marriage bonus. And we should allow the parents of young children to keep more of their own money as well, Hawley said.

Now, one can argue about the feasibility of Hawleys domestic manufacturing requirement or attack his marriage bonus as social engineering, which many of our libertarian friends like to do, but these are real policy solutions being offered to solve the defining problem of our time: the disintegration of the American family.

If anything, we need more politicians like Hawley willing to lead on the issue.

Original post:

Josh Hawley is dead right about men and marriage - Washington Examiner

The Infrastructure Bill Makes Building Back More Expensive – Reason

In this week's Reason Roundtable, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather to berate one of the most expensive legislative packages in U.S. history and discuss some significant takeaways from last Tuesday's elections.

Discussed in the show:

1:52: That $2.1 trillion (yes, trillion) infrastructure bill that just passed.

20:35: Lessons from last week's elections.

29:05: Weekly Listener Question: I'm an attorney. All of my colleagues and I are fully vaccinated, yet we wear masks in the office. We are all required to be vaccinated. I hate it. Your response would be to find another job. I think Peter just had the audacity to suggest that switching employers is similar to going to a different restaurant because you don't like the spaghetti at the Olive Garden. For me, libertarianism is more than just a paradigm for government. It's a life philosophy. I am weary of the idea that anything goes, even if it's bad, as long as it only happens in the private sector. I am writing this email using a ridiculous pseudonym because I would not want my employer to know that I read and listen to Reason. They could fire me if they associate me with anything that looks un-woke; is this OK with you? Sure, I could quit my job. But any other job will have the same requirements. That doesn't really represent choice. Out here in the real world, you do not get to choose your job so easily. I do not have the option of being a professional libertarian. So I jab and mask, so I can keep making enough money to help my parents, no matter what I believe or what I wish to do with my body. This is OK with you?

41:53: The unveiling of the OSHA/vaccine mandate specifics.

51:58: Media recommendations for the week.

This week's links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian KeyserAssistant production by Regan TaylorMusic: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

Read more:

The Infrastructure Bill Makes Building Back More Expensive - Reason

Cindy Axne will run for reelection in Congress, closing the door on Iowa gubernatorial bid – Des Moines Register

U.S. Rep. Cindy Axnewill seek reelection in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, she announced Friday, officially closing the door on a possible run for governor in 2022.

Axne, a West Des Moines Democrat, previously ruled out running for the U.S. Senate,but shehad left open the possibility of running for governor.

She announced the news during a Friday morning taping of Iowa Press on Iowa PBS.

"Folks, I'm going to be running for the United States Congress here in Iowa's 3rd District," she said.

The news comes just days after Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks said she would compete in the 1st District rather than stay in a newly redrawn 3rd District.

The pair of announcementshelpsolidify the field of candidates that will competein the 3rd District, which includes Des Moines and is expected to be among the most hotly contested races in the country.

More: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run for reelection in new 1st Congressional District

Already, outside organizations like the National Republican Congressional Committee have been targeting Axne with attack ads as they try to unseat vulnerable Democrats.

Axne is one of only a handful of congressional Democrats in the country to win in a district Trump carried in 2020, though she won by a narrow margin. Axne beat Republican challenger David Young by just 1.4 percentage points, 49% to 47.6%. Libertarian candidate Bryan Holder earned about 3.4% of the votea share that some Republicans said undercut Young's effort.

This election cycle, Axne will compete in a new set of counties reorganized under the3rd District as a result of the state's redistricting process.

More: Iowa lawmakers accept second redistricting plan, setting up next decade of politics

Overall, the partisan makeup ofthe new district remainslargely unchanged, with Democrats continuing to account forabout 36% of registered voters and Republicans making up about 34%.

But some geographic shifts could make Axne's reelection campaign more difficult.

Polk and Dallas Counties, the two largest population centers, still anchor the 3rd District. But it loses several counties along the state's western border that Axne had focused on during her previous two terms while addressing severe flooding there, helping her to makeinroads with voters. Instead, the district gains several other rural counties that tend to favor Republicans that Axne has not campaigned in before.

Axne said her job is tomeet those new voters "and tell all those folks that I'm there for them and I've got their back."

"Its about taking my voice out to the people that I would be representing, hearing from them, listening to their concerns and talking with them about how Ive already been putting policy in place to benefit their lives and address those concerns," Axne said. "But also the policy that Im currently working on thats helping them."

Those issues include securing more money for biofuels, lowering prescription drug prices, improving mental health care for veterans and addressing the nation's supply chain problems.

Many of those subjects, Axne said, can be addressed through President Joe Biden's agenda, including a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that Biden plans to sign Monday and a $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" bill that would include money for child care, lower prescription drug prices and pay for education and climate change initiatives.

"I believe that once we get the infrastructure bill signed into law, the Build Back Better Act signed into law, next year folks are seeing expansion of those child care centers, theyre seeing more money in their pocket because of the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit," Axne said."I think about the folks here who are on insulin. Were going to cap it at $35 a month."

No Democrats have announced a challenge to Axne, but a handful of Republicans are competing in a primary election as the party seeks to unseat her.

Among them are state Sen. Zach Nunn of Bondurant, who currently leads the Republican field in fundraising. Nunn raised $281,905 in total receipts during the fundraising quarter that ended in October, giving him $213,779 in cash on hand.

Political newcomer Nicole Hassoof Johnston raised $170,863 and finishedthe quarter with $134,670 in the bank.

More: Why Iowa Democrat Cindy Axne voted for $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan

Retired State Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, a Council Bluffs resident, previously announced she would run in Iowas 3rd Congressional District. But as a result of redistricting, her home county of Pottawattamie now sits in the 4th District, which is more heavily conservative and represented by incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra.

Hanusa told the Des Moines Register she had been waiting on Miller-Meeks' decision before deciding what to do with her own campaign. Had Miller-Meeks chosen to compete in the 3rd District, Hanusa said she would not have challenged her.

"Obviously deference went to Mariannettes decision," Hanusa said. "So now that thats been made, I will look at the situation and consider everything.For right now, the campaigns still on."

Since launching her campaign in April, Hanusa has raised $103,619, including $65,826 in the third quarter. She has$44,718in the bank.

More: A year out, Iowa candidates raise money for 2022 elections; Finkenauer, Hinson rake in most

Gary Leffler, a Republican activist from West Des Moines, has filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, but he has not yet filed financial reports.

Axne goes into the race with about $1.6 million in cash on hand afterraising $757,831 during the third quarter.

Despite outraising her opponents,she knows she's facing an onslaught of ads from national Republican groups.

"I am the number one targeted race by the National Republican Campaign Committee," she said. "They want to take me out so that they can have the House."

In a sign of how competitive the race will be, state and national Republicans quickly issued statements criticizing Axne following her reelection announcement.

"Axne has spent the past two years hiding from Iowans and cozying up to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden," Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann said."Axne represents a continuation of Biden and Pelosi's disastrous agenda and Iowa Republicans are committed to fighting back to stop it."

Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at bpfann@dmreg.com or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on Twitter at @sgrubermiller.

View post:

Cindy Axne will run for reelection in Congress, closing the door on Iowa gubernatorial bid - Des Moines Register

Kmele Foster Is Right: Banning Critical Race Theory Isn’t Going To Stop It – The Federalist

On the latest The Fifth Column episode, cohost Kmele Foster reiterates his argument, previously expressed in a coauthored New York Times op-ed, that banning critical race theory in schools is bad. While discussing to what extent public opposition to this form of racism fueled Republican success in last weeks elections, Foster again claimed there is zero evidence that this particular strategy [of banning CRT in schools] is working.

In practice, these bills create a great deal of uncertainty about how curriculum should be constructed and what constitutes a kid being made to feel uncomfortable or being told they should feel shame on account of their race, he claimed.

He cited a school board meeting in which teachers questioned whether they should now teach the other side of the Holocaust. That is a direct result of these idiotic bans of critical race theory, Foster claimed. Later he also noted that Texas lawmakers are asking state institutions to report whether they are using public resources to buy and promote anti-American and racist books, claiming thats a prelude to book bans.

For one thing, even if Texas lawmakers do take action after they gather this information, they will not be banning books. They may refuse to expend public resources on certain books, but that is not banning them. Actual book bans, actual censorship, would mean what happens with successful full-bore cancel operations from the left: The person with the book is unable to publicly publish or distribute it, even on his own time and dime.

Its a bit like what Twitter and Facebook do to presidents and members of Congress, which libertarians and classical liberals (like Foster claims to be) are always telling us is totally fine because Facebook and Twitter are private companies and they should not be forced to publish and distribute speech they dont agree with.

Well, fine, then, lets spread this libertarian goose sauce around equally. If Twitter shouldnt be forced to platform Donald Trump and Republican Rep. Jim Banks, the good taxpayers of Texas also shouldnt be forced to pay for, distribute, and platform speech they dont agree with through the government institutions they are supposed to democratically control.

Thats not a book or a speech ban, at least according to the reasoning of libertarians like Foster. If any government declines to fund their activities, such speakers and authors would still be free to speak and publish as they wish. They would not be free, however, to force other people to subsidize their speech. (This also gets into how government and monopolies today control public squares and what should be private life by subsidizing and legally preferencing only one politically favored side, a very big aspect of all this that must be saved for additional discussions.)

To Fosters point about college-educated teachers alleged difficulty in understanding pretty obvious laws, it seems likely to me that any nincompoops asking about teaching both sides of the Holocaust are trolling. Its clear what they are legally supposed to teach and not, they just dont want to comply with the law, so theyre getting pedantic, like a middle schooler or a Jesuit. [Update: It turns out Fosters characterization of this story was based on fake news, and I was right: this was a biased curriculum director falsely characterizing the Texas law to local teachers.]

Its only hard for teachers to figure out what they are now allowed to teach if they dont want to understand the message. Just dont be a racist, and youre good. The problem is, some teachers seem to believe they deserve public sinecures to preach the gospel of anti-white hatred. Thats why they just cant accept the laws obvious intent and meaning and move on.

This blends into a point Foster also made in the podcast that I think is dead-on accurate.

Maybe, as opposed to taking a side in an idiotic culture war, if you try to circumvent the whole thing and focus on things that actually matter, like developing pedagogy thats better, like establishing curriculum that works in a more serious way, he said. Im sorry, if you think that the culture war is going to be over because someone passed a ban in Virginia, go look at Texas. Theyre still having problems.

Setting aside the absurd reductionism I know of nobody who thinks CRT, yet alone all the culture wars, will be instantly solved by a state ban Foster is right that CRT bans are not enough. One proof is in those very teachers who are resisting the will of the voters who fund their salaries and supply children to their classrooms.

Critical race theorys hold on the U.S. education and corporate systems is the poisonous fruit of a poisoned tree. To root it out will require a lot more than state and local bans. It requires of the right exactly what the far-left is doing: Systemic thinking.

That means not taking an isolated, whack-a-mole approach that lawmakers might prefer so they can just pass some patch on the problem and send voters home with a pat on the head. It means making a comprehensive, holistic assessment of how so much of American local, regional, state, and even national leaders participate in and even condone open, government-supported racism.

Why are there any teachers, let alone entire unions, teachers colleges, entire teacher training systems, curriculum factories, testing companies, the whole education cabal supporting open racism and anti-American hatred? How is it that such important drivers of American society not only condone but energize hatred against their own predecessors and way of life? How is it not obvious to so many so-called leaders of American society that this ideology they put hundreds of millions of dollars behind is contemptible and incompatible with truth, justice, and the American way?

The very existence and widespread use of CRT is an indictment on the entire system. As such, it requires not merely a one-off response like a ban. It demands a comprehensive evaluation of the entire education system and a total reorientation of its priorities and methods. The neo-racists are right about one thing: Racism in America appears to be pretty systemic. What theyre wrong about is what kind of racism, as well as the right way to address it.

Earlier this year, commentator Richard Hanania made the point, on which I built several related arguments, that critical race ideology has been furthered by U.S. laws and institutions since the 1960s. It hasnt been imposed on America from space aliens, and it hasnt grown entirely organically, its been fostered by years of legal and policy accretions.

So thats another area in which Foster is wrong. Attempts to ban critical race theory from classrooms, Foster also said on the podcast, Dont make any differentiation between what youre doing in kindergarten and twelfth grade, that is f-cking censorship and that is not how you go about changing the culture. The book banners never win, -sshole, full stop.

On the contrary: Taking control of public and private speech, and tilting the many interlocking education monopolies in favor of leftist ideology, has absolutely been a winning strategy for hard-left ideologues. If speech banning didnt work so very, very well, theyd let Trump back on Twitter and conservatives on CNN.

You 100 percent do change culture by changing laws. Thats exactly how we got critical race theory everywhere, as Hanania pointed out this summer: Wokeness is law, he pointed out, going on to detail multiple ways in which government policies force schools and employers into racism in the guise of combatting racism.

If it is law, it can be changed. And it should be, because racism is evil. So, yes, ban teachers from preaching racism on the taxpayers dime. But dont stop there, because government-sponsored racism doesnt stop there, either. Not even close.

Photo U.S. Army photo by Bob McElroy

More here:

Kmele Foster Is Right: Banning Critical Race Theory Isn't Going To Stop It - The Federalist

The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio – Legal Reader

Marco Rubio may not perceive the lack of historical awareness (and ironic comedy) in his speech to a conservative conference last week, but you might.

Last week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida. According to the National Conservatism website, the gathering is dedicated to reviving the nationalism that binds us, so that we can flourish together. We see the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race, they say, with a nod to the specter of CRT.

Since the conference brings together the best the modern American conservative movement has to offer and defines the future conservatives want, I thought it most profitable to really dig into Rubios speech. As the lightly edited transcript on his site says, The thing I really like about this conference is about thinking, listening, learning and ultimately defining what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. When people in power offer this kind of insight, its best to listen up.

To get at the heart of what Marco Rubio is offering to us, Im going to delve into (and quote heavily from) the more-polished, cleaned-up version that The American Conservative printed as a Rubio op-ed, titled We Need Corporate Patriotism To Defeat American Marxism.

There was a time when, to paraphrase Charles Wilson, what was good for big American companies was good for America. But today, led by a generation of leaders who feel no obligation to our nation, corporate America is the instrument of anti-American ideologies. This is a bold opening for Marco Rubio, who has taken a great deal of money in contributions from individuals and PACs associated with the likes of Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America. However, it is clear that the sort of nationless rich and companies that would hide their money overseas really dont feel an obligation to our nation. Go on, Marco, tell us more.

The collapse of corporate patriotism opened the door for these companies to fall for anti-American ideologies The companies that control the vast majority of Americas economic resources and curate the information we see and hear on a daily basis now say that America is a racist or sexist country. A country based upon stealing land by displacing or outright killing the original residents, built by enslaved people brought in chains because they were perceived as stupid and servile and because their darker skin would make them stand out, and which, even now, still reverberates with cries of build the wall! by people who cheered separating brown children from their parents, is racist? I wonder how anyone could get that impression.

These oligarchs believe the very existence of America is fatally flawed, and they are devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to advance corporate propaganda that reflects these beliefs. They aim to remake our society, our culture, and our country. They aim to redefine what constitutes a good life in America. Is Marco Rubio objecting to companies being able to spend money as a form of speech? Im sure hell get to work right away to help pass a law overturning Citizens United, then. As far as what constitutes a good life in America, I have some suggestions. How about not poisoning Americans via decaying lead plumbing? Or earning a wage that lets you raise your kids above the poverty level? Or mitigating sea level rise in Florida? Rubio had the chance to support a package like this, but voted it down and called it socialist.

For over a century these have been the tactics used by Marxists to take over countless nations and societies. Marxists use corporate oligarchs to promote the struggle of the working class to seize the means of production? For real? If we do not fight back, we will lose America. No, Marco dear, youre losing America by feeding the oligarchs. I didnt start paying attention yesterday, you know. This is not hyperbole. In fact, is it very familiar to the Americans I was raised by and those I still live among, who witnessed Marxist revolutions take over their homelands. Is Marco Rubio asserting that corporations have taken over Cuba?

But the battle against cultural Marxism will not be won by relying on an outdated Wall Street Journal Conservatism that does not fully address the challenges faced by working Americans in our 21st century economy. No, the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican party has no interest in addressing the problems of working Americans, except to hold them further underwater. That is why big businesses have funded both major American parties for so long.

Defining conservatism as just cutting regulations and taxes works well for the nationless companies headquartered in America. However, those companies have no incentive to reinvest in Americas families, communities, or future. If Rubio is firing a shot over the bow of Corporate America here, well know in the coming months as his voting record begins to evidence his support for more regulations and higher taxes on these nationless companies, in order to invest in American families, communities, and future. If he doesnt, this is so much hot air. Keep an eye on him.

It is time we push companies to meet their obligations to America. The GOP has long been a coalition party that brought together free market libertarians and social conservatives in order to enact policies that please both. In practice, this results in a worldview that grants corporations rights as if they were flesh-and-blood people, but without the moral obligations that real people feel. Is Rubio leaving behind the free market ideology that now defines his party? What would Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say?

What does that look like? Since these nationless companies got many of their corporate privileges from the policies of the United States government, we should use those policies to reward and incentivize corporate decisions that promote a strong and prosperous America. This is edging very close to the planned economy that conservatives have long derided as failed Communism, but OK.

First, that means getting wokeness out of the boardroom. At a minimum, we should require that the leadership of large companies be subject to strict scrutiny and legal liability when they abuse their corporate privilege by pushing wasteful, anti-American nonsense. Its interesting that Marco Rubio suddenly wants to police corporations this closely. If companies are getting woke (that is, supporting human rights, alleviating poverty, caring about the environment, and other similar goals), its because theyve decided that these actions are profitable and serve the interests of the shareholders. Henry Ford, capitalist icon, knew that his workers needed to be able to afford his products. Maybe Ford was too woke for Rubios taste.

For example, we can use the current shareholder primacy argument against these companies. Right now, the burden is on the shareholder to prove these woke, anti-American stanceslike boycotting a state for governing its own election lawsare bad for shareholders. Instead, we should place the burden on the company to prove it is acting in the best interest of shareholders. If companies like Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, and Delta Airlines are bowing to public pressure and leaving Georgia, perhaps keeping their customer base is more in line with shareholder interests than is supporting voter disenfranchisement. If their politically active customers (and Georgias voters) are Americans, its hard to consider these positions to be anti-American.

Second, that means a stock market that holds companies accountable for pro-American goals hahahahahaha gasp pardon me rather than left-wing social engineering or globalist profiteering. We should require that companies disclose to investors and be held to account for their investment in Americafacilities, workforce training, number of Americans hiredas opposed to off-shoring jobs overseas, or showing how diverse their workplaces are. Oh, Marco Rubio, your memory is so short that youre failing to remember how proud your fellow conservatives were of St. Ronald Reagans stance regarding globalization. Free and open markets, not a komissar in every boardroom. In 2018, the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump and which Marco Rubio himself voted for, which incentivized offshoring of American jobs. It passed the Senate with only Republican support. Whos woke now?

[W]e should have requirements that companies boards of directors be free of any conflicts of interest with foreign adversaries such as China. Suddenly conflicts of interest bother Marco Rubio.

When regular workers save for retirement, they shouldnt have to give over the control of their investments to investment funds that will command the company to act against those workers own interests 401(k) retirement accounts exploded during the Reagan administration. Reagan ran on the idea of privatized retirement savings (like IRAs), and changed the law to expand adoption of the 401(k). As a result, employers started offering them as a benefit, instead of actual pensions, while the resulting increase in stock market investment made the investor class even richer. Conservatives have long favored dismantling, even privatizing, Social Security, forcing those who want to save for retirement to turn to investment funds instead of employers and the Government. Rubios commentary here is comedy gold.

For example, the retirement fund for Americas service members, the TSP, should be banned from investing in Chinese military companies, or using service members savings to push American companies off-shore to China. That is something Congress can fix right now and on which there is bipartisan agreement OK, do it, Mr. Rubio. See if your fellow conservatives will bite.

One solution would be to mandate that these institutional shareholders merely send in the votes of the ultimate beneficiaries of these funds, rather than vote on their behalf. There would be a lot less craziness in Americas corporations if the people voting their shares were firefighters and teachers rather than their union bosses or Wall Street. I wonder if he would soon find just how many woke firefighters and teachers we have.

The ultimate way to stop the current Marxist cultural revolution among our corporate elite is to replace them with a new generation of business leaders who consider themselves Americans, not citizens of the world. I simply cant get over just how badly Marco Rubio wants to stop Marxism via state control of corporations.

That is how we defeat this toxic cultural Marxism and rebuild an economy where Americas largest companies were accountable for what matters to America: new factories built in America, good jobs for American families, and investments in American neighborhoods and communities. It sounds like Marco wants what actual Socialists have pushed for while his conservative pals have been shoveling jobs out the door and failing to invest in our communities or our future, to better enrich the already-rich. Welcome to the dark side, Comrade, heres your commemorative hammer-and-sickle lapel pin.

It is not too late to get it right, but we have no time to waste in restoring what has made this nation great for so many generations. What made this nation great is mostly the practices and policies that Marco Rubio and his party have opposed since at least the time of Nixon, if not the Gilded Age. Ill be interested to see if his voting starts to match his rhetoric, or if this pretty patriotic speech is simply opening the door to something much uglier. If this is the best, most intellectually serious discourse that the conservative movement has to offer, though, we should all be a little worried over whats become of the American political scene.

Related: If MLB is a State Actor, Who Else is Too?

Original post:

The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio - Legal Reader

The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute

If youve routinely endorsed conservative policies and candidates, but now find that rightwingers have become chauvinistic, fiscally irresponsible and intolerant, consider the libertarian alternative.

If youve previously embraced liberal policies and candidates, but now find that leftwingers have pushed identity politics and socialist bromides, consider the libertarian alternative.

Libertarians have praised President Trump for progress in the Middle East, success against ISIS, reduced troop levels abroad, lower taxes, less regulation, and the confirmation of judges who appreciate individual rights and limited government. On the other hand, we have criticized Trump when he derides our intelligence agencies, cozies up to dictators, alienates our allies, and exacerbates global tensions. Weve also been troubled by his xenophobic immigration policies, protectionist trade barriers, punitive drug policy, excessive focus on the culture wars, and exploding federal spending.

Libertarians will support PresidentElect Bidens plans for criminal justice reform, immigration liberalization, civil rights, social permissiveness, revitalizing American diplomacy, reducing our military commitments, and nonproliferation. On the other hand, we will vigorously oppose higher taxes, more regulations, affirmative action, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, expanded welfare, free college, ballooning entitlements, ahigher minimum wage, and judges who think the Constitution is amalleable document that courts can exploit as an alternative to legislation.

In essence, libertarianism is the political philosophy of personal and economic freedom. We believe that capitalism is the most efficient and morally defensible means of allocating scarce economic resources. Philosophically, we subscribe, as did Thomas Jefferson, to the idea of unobstructed liberty within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Governments role is to secure those rights, applying sufficient coercive power but no more than the minimum necessary to attain that objective.

Put somewhat differently, we should be free to live our lives as we choose, as long as we dont interfere with other people who wish to do the same. Of course, individuals can never be completely selfsufficient. Thats why we sometimes need rules, enforced by government, to make peaceful cooperation possible. The risk, however, is that rules too extensive will produce asystem of special favors that extracts largesse for the politically connected at the expense of the rest of us. By contrast, libertarianism relies on spontaneous ordering minimizing the role of acommanding power that might preempt freely chosen actions.

Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, selective gun controls, or sensible restrictions in other areas. Moreover, we recognize that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The relevant standard against which to compare our current framework is not autopian world in which justice is ubiquitous and all inequities have been systemically purged. Instead, we have to look at the current environment versus one in which regulations would be more pervasive meaning that some problems might be solved, but other problems would no doubt multiply.

Among those other problems: disincentives to innovate, favors to special interests, increased cost, reduced growth, governmentconferred monopolies, anticompetitive barriers to entry, restricted consumer choices, higher prices, overlapping and confusing laws, abuses of public power, and excessive resources devoted to politicking and lobbying.

How, then, can someone who views the left as excessively collectivist and the right as excessively authoritarian join with libertarians in advancing socially liberal and fiscally conservative goals? One way is to vote for candidates who come closest to promoting proliberty policies. Given the current political mix, those candidates will not be pristine libertarians. But its not necessary to agree with libertarianism acrosstheboard in order to move public policy in the right direction.

Second, alibertarian movement might be buttressed by supporting legislation and other political actions that foster personal autonomy and limited government. Such support policyspecific rather than candidatespecific could be in the form of lobbying, communications with government officials, letters to the editor, or donations to likeminded organizations.

Finally, theres the outside prospect of forming aviable third party. Two obvious hurdles complicate that approach. First, campaign contributions are presently limited to $2,800 per candidate per election. Effectively, that precludes all thirdparty candidates except those who can selffund. Second, 48 of the 50 states award presidential electors on awinnertakeall basis. Only Maine and Nebraska assign electors, in part, district by district. Consequently, candidates who have no chance of winning astatewide popular vote will not be able to garner any electoral votes.

Regrettably, therefore, fashioning an undiluted libertarian alternative will take time and effort. But incremental progress toward favorable public policy is practicable, opportune, and indisputably worthwhile. Lets get the ball rolling.

Read the rest here:

The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change – Niagara Gazette

The New York State Libertarian and Green parties are calling foul for the change of rules for third parties running candidates in New York state.

Cody Anderson, the chair of the Libertarian Party in the state of New York, said his party, along with the New York Green Party, had filed a preliminary injunction in a federal lawsuit to have the State Board of Election cease implementing changes to Election Law passed in Part ZZZ in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.

If we lose, and I dont think we will, but if we lose, it will be nearly impossible to get back on the ballot, Anderson said.

The changes

In 2018, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Independence Party and the SAM Party all receivedmore than50,000 votes each for their candidates in the governors race. Before Part ZZZ, this secured each of them a party line in the 2022 election.

However, the rules have now been changed, according to Duane Whitmer, a former-candidate on the Libertarian line. And he said thats not fair, or even legal.

Under the new rules, the ballot access that these parties earned through 2022 was removed, Whitmer said. In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the thresholds were changed, and these parties needed to reach a higher threshold in 2020 in order to maintain ballot access.

That higher threshold was 171,000 votes for their presidential candidate, about 2% of the votes cast in New York for the nationwide election, said Whitmer.

Part ZZZ stipulated that instead of securing 50,000 votes for each partys candidates for governor and thereby becoming a recognized political party for four years with a ballot line, that time was sliced in half to two years and included the race for president. Candidates nominated by third parties in both the presidential election and the gubernatorial election must gather 130,000 votes or 2% of the vote in New York whichever was higher to keep their parties on the ballot line.

This knocked down all four of the third parties mentioned to square one petitioning to get on the ballot that they'd won the right to be on already.

What now?

"We had had ballot status originally in 1996," said Gloria Mattera, co-chair for the New York Green Party. "We had really kept building the party with petitions of tens of thousands of signatures. We ran local candidates, myself included several times. ... We'd maintained ballot status for three gubernatorial cycles.... We're working hard to overturn this unfair law."

If the parties loses the lawsuit, Libertarians and Greens will have to collect 45,000 signatures, up from 15,000, to run a candidate for governor.

If they win the lawsuit, the party will only need petitions from about 5% of registered Libertarians or Greens in New York.

We can lie down and take it after fighting for ballot access (for years), Anderson said. Or we can stand up and fight it. Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:

Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change - Niagara Gazette

Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties – The Daily News Online

A cynical power play by two tired old parties.

Thats what leaders of the states two largest third-parties are calling a provision slipped into the state budget that seeks to make it harder for third-party platforms to make it on the state and national ballots.

The Libertarian Party and Green Party filed a motion in federal court Tuesday for a preliminary injunction against the provision.

The provision, Part ZZZ, is the rider to the New York State budget, passed in April under cover of the pandemic, that increased vote and petitioning thresholds required for minor parties in New York state to obtain and maintain automatic ballot access, party leaders say.

In the motion, the parties asked the court to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants not to apply the new voter and petitioning thresholds from Part ZZZ and continue to apply the previous party definition.

This preliminary injunction is about protecting the Constitutional rights of the Green and Libertarian Parties, but more than that we intend to protect the rights of all New Yorkers to democratic choice in our elections, said Gloria Mattera, New York co-chair of the Green Party. The move by Governor Cuomo and the Legislature in the budget was clearly done to eliminate those choices and to do so as rapidly as possible. We reject their cynical power play.

The budget provision changes how minor parties achieve ballot status.

Currently, minor parties need 50,000 votes for their candidates for governor, a mark that will allow the parties to qualify for the ballot every four years.

The Green and Libertarian parties have both established the right to be on the ballot, based on the previous rules.

The new rules would require minor parties get 130,000 votes, or two percent, of votes cast to remain on the ballot. The provision also requires qualifications to happen every two years, instead of every four.

The provision came from Jay Jacobs, chairman of the state Democratic Party. He initially called for the required votes to be set at 250,000.

Jacobs, in an article in The New York Times, said the change was aimed at reducing voter confusion and rooting out corruption.

The Green and Libertarian parties filed a lawsuit in July in the Southern District of New York that claims the new provision alleges infringement upon First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to organize, identify, and vote for minor parties under the United States Constitution, and that the new voter and petitioning requirements are therefore unconstitutional.

The suit has yet to be heard, prompting the parties to seek an injunction.

The Libertarian Party has been the fastest-growing third-party in the country and leaders say the new rules will damage its status.

We maintain that the unconstitutional actions of the governor and legislature have caused irreparable harm to the Libertarian and Green Parties, as well as to other minor parties in New York State, said Cody Anderson, chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Rather than allowing the governor to use the state Board of Elections as a tool to punish his political enemies and consolidate his power, we have asked the courts to recognize the violation of our 1st and 14th Amendment rights, to enjoin the Board of Elections to cease implementation of Part ZZZ, and to allow us to continue offering voters principled alternatives to the two tired old parties.

Locally, Chase Tkach, chair of the Libertarian Party of Orleans County, said she, too, is appalled at the efforts to block third parties.

The actions taken by the Board of Elections are meant to suppress voters, said Tkach, who in 2019 received more than 12 percent of the vote for a seat on the county legislature. Im confident we will win.

Link:

Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties - The Daily News Online

LETTER: Yukon the Libertarian friend of a reindeer? – The News Herald

The News Herald

Two years ago, the CBS broadcast of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer"was attacked by cancel culture. Somecalled for its removal, due to Rudolph being bullied. Yet, they fail seeing Rudolph overcomes it and becomes Santa's lead reindeer.

There's also a libertarian message, in a subplot.

More: Have an opinion? Submit a Letter to the Editor

My favorite characterof this specialis Yukon Cornelius. He struck meas the main comedy relief. As I watched him in my adulthood, I discovered a hidden fact. Yukon is a libertarian.

Libertarianism always existed in the U.S.While the Libertarian Party beganin 1971, libertarianism was well before then. This includes our pop culture. Yukon's character, is a libertarian personificationin a Christmas icon.

He owns the land Rudolph and Herbiemeet him in. He originally prospectsfor silver and gold, which libertarians say is real/solid wealth. He voluntarily asks Rudolph and Herbieto join himin his prospecting. After escaping from Bumbles, he changes his mind and decides to prospect silver.

When going through the fog, Yukon calls it "thick as peanut butter."Herbie tries correcting him, saying, "You mean pea soup." Yukon replies, "You eat what you like and I'll eat what I like." After rescuing Rudolph and friends from Bumbles, he helps Bumbles reform. Bumbles voluntarily changes and accepts Yukon's help. He learns new skills and takes a job, helping Santa decorate tall Christmas trees.

At the special's end Yukon discovers a peppermint vein. Knowing he's now in Christmas Land he decides to open a peppermint mine and sell the mineralfor future Christmases. He makes Bumbles his partner and they go into business together.

His story continuesin the DVD sequel, "Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys."

He and Bumbles' peppermint vein runs out and he'sfacing closing the mine. Underneath the final vein, Yukon discovers gold. His hard workpays off.

On a final note, Yukon carries a pistol, but he never uses it. The fact he carries itshows he believes in private gun ownership.

Overall, Yukon Cornelius proves he's a libertarian and shows the long-term successesthat come from it. See it yourself, next time you watch it.

David Agosta, Secretary Bay County Libertarian Party

Visit link:

LETTER: Yukon the Libertarian friend of a reindeer? - The News Herald

Masks are the conservative thing to do – The Gazette

With 350,000 Americans dead, we may be weeks away from losing 420,000, or more than all American deaths in World War II. Will you change your ways when the number becomes 5,000 per day? What if it becomes 10,000 per day?

Freedom, an idea Ive long been a public friend and vocal supporter of, should be defined as: your right to live your life how you see fit, as long as that doesnt prevent others from doing the same. Yes, this libertarian is saying: No man is an island.

Are individual liberties and a sense of community completely at odds? Were air-raid blackouts during World War II a violation of freedom, or simply a responsibility? When faced with the strong chance that your behaviors could harm others, is it still your right to act or not act any way you please?

Not shuttering those lights, drunken driving and not taking obvious COVID-19 precautions dont necessarily injure or kill someone else. But ultimately, directly or indirectly, it will.

That isnt freedom.

Thats you valuing your own temporary comfort and convenience over the lives of others. That doesnt make you a Patriotic American, it makes you a part of the biggest threat America has faced in 100 years. That isnt written in a hyperbolic sense, but in the shortage of body bags sense.

And when this virus kills or harms someone you love or maybe even you youll have wished you could take everything back. But by then, it will be too late, as its already too late for the 350,000 dead Americans and their families.

Embarrassingly enough, it seems this denier mentality is mostly slanted to one side politically. So hear this message from one of your own: Act right now.

This is our Nations biggest test, and its being failed, badly.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Sean Curtin of Iowa City is an advocate for conservative views including the 2nd Amendment, civil liberties and criminal justice reform.

Sean Curtin

See more here:

Masks are the conservative thing to do - The Gazette

Biden’s Judicial Picks Should Include Lawyers Who Battled the Government in Court – Reason

Libertarians are sure to be unhappy with plenty of incoming President Joe Biden's judicial picks. But there is one glimmer of hope on the courtroom front. The Huffington Post reports that the Biden team is looking to bring some much-needed professional diversity to the federal bench:

In a letter obtained by HuffPost, Biden's incoming White House counsel Dana Remus tells Democratic senators to try to find public defenders and civil rights attorneys in their states who they think would be a good fit for a federal judgeship.

"With respect to U.S. District Court positions, we are particularly focused on nominating individuals whose legal experiences have been historically underrepresented on the federal bench, including those who are public defenders, civil rights and legal aid attorneys, and those who represent Americans in every walk of life," reads the Dec. 22 letter.

That is welcome news. As Cato Institute criminal justice scholar Clark Neily has pointed out, there is a "wild imbalance" on the federal bench "between judges who used to represent the government in court and judges who used to challenge the government in court." Given that "nearly every court case pitting a lone citizen against the state represents a David-versus-Goliath fight for justice," Neily noted, "to further stack the deck with judges who are far more likely to have earned their spurs representing Goliath than David is unfair to individual litigants and a bad look for the justice system as a whole."

This is one point on which libertarians and progressives can agree. "The federal courts have largely become peopled with lawyers who are former prosecutors, which has entirely skewed the lens through which the law is seen. Public defenders have essentially been shut out," Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told an interviewer last month. "I'm not interested in a lot of Black prosecutors being appointed to the federal bench," she continued. "I'm not interested in cosmetic diversity. I'm interested in substantive diversity."

To say the least, Joe Biden is not the most promising figure from the standpoint of criminal justice reform. During his long career in politics, he stood out as an inveterate drug warrior and law enforcement booster. But it is never too late to make amends. If Biden is even remotely serious about pursuing criminal justice reform, one positive thing he can do as president is to nominate more judges whose experience includes battling the government in court.

Read the rest here:

Biden's Judicial Picks Should Include Lawyers Who Battled the Government in Court - Reason

I lost a law school election to Josh Hawley. I moved on then, and he should now on Trump. – USA TODAY

Irina D. Manta, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Jan. 5, 2021

He beat me for president of the Yale Law School Federalist Society by exploiting the rules. He should follow my example and not contest Trump's loss.

Sen. Josh Hawley has made waves with his call for Republican senators to object to President-elect Joe Bidens election victoryand force Congress to voteWednesdayon whether to accept the Electoral College results.I invite Sen. Hawley to reconsider his misguided position and, instead, to do what I did when I lost an election to no other than him: show grace in defeat.The principle is the same whether the election is for president of the United States or, as with us, for president of a campus club.

Sen. Hawley and I were both members of the Yale Law School Class of 2006. While we had our differences, we shared a common bond through our joint participation in the schools fairly small Federalist Society, made up of mostly conservative and libertarian law students.

At the end of our first year, we were both electedas Vice Presidents for Events of the YLS Federalist Society. Collaborating in these positions in our second year proved difficult. I organized the lion's share of the groups events and frequently received no responses from him on emails I sent to him and the Societys president that year. This puzzled me because I thought ourgoal was to make the organization as strong as possible, and failure to communicate was an obstacle.

This isnt to say that Sen. Hawley didnt have his qualities as a vice president. For example, his marketing skills certainly contributed tostrong turnout at an event with the late Harvard Law School professor William Stuntz. While I did more work that year, Sen. Hawley knew better how to shine the spotlight on his contributions, which is an important skill in the political arena.

The YLS Federalist Societys presidential electionstarted rolling around the spring of our second year, in 2005, and it was traditional for one of the two VPs for Events to assume that role. Sen. Hawley and I each announced our candidacies. Shortly before the election, a friend tipped me off to how Sen. Hawley was planning to beat me, given that he was uncertain he coulddo so based onvotes only fromregular members who knew our records best.

Irina Manta on May 22, 2006, in the Lillian Goldman Library at Yale Law School.(Photo: Family courtesy)

Asappearedaccuratebased on the eventual turnout, Sen. Hawley had obtained from the sitting president the student email addresses for the YLS Federalist Society listserv (and the president, whom I had helped to win the previous year, did not volunteer that information to me at that stage). The rule was that anyone who had signed up for the listserv by a certain earlier date could vote in the Societys elections. This included a bunch of people whodid not attend events and had little or no involvement with the Society.

Hawley's White House path:Be No. 1 at pandering to Trump and trampling democracy

The rule, while easy to administer, was a bad one. It even had the potential for individuals to co-opt the Society for the sole purpose of destroying it. Historically, however, nobody had exploited that rule, to my knowledge. Instead, candidates had campaigned for votes from people actively involved withthe Society.

Law professor Irina D. Manta and Sen. Josh Hawley.(Photo: Manta by Carlos Farini. Hawley by Getty Images.)

I found out about Sen. Hawleys plans too late to counter them successfully. I lost the YLS Federalist Societys presidential election to him by a handful of votes.The presidency comes with a number of advantages, including entry to key professional opportunities. From my perspective, I was the more deserving candidate and cared more about the organization. The voting rules, again, were problematic, and Sen. Hawley exploited that all the way to victory for himself and the rest of his slate.

But you know what? As far as electoral fairness is concerned, none of that matters. The rules were the rules. The people who showed up to vote had the right to vote. I have no reason to believe that the person who counted the votes miscounted. Based on the system we had, which while flawed was hardly unethical, Sen. Hawley won and I lost. And not once did I attempt to contest that loss.

Sen. Hawley and I both ended up initially aslaw professors, but thenour paths split. He pursued political offices while I remained in academia (though also continued my own political activism). And while he has been one of President Donald Trumps loyalists, I have been the opposite, from my membership in Checks & Balances(a group of lawyers and academics committed to the Constitution and the rule of law)to my volunteer work for the Biden campaign in 2020.

On his way out the door: Congress should impeach Trump again and bar him from holding any future public office

Of course, the stakes are much higher when it comes to the presidency of the United States than that of the Yale Law School Federalist Society. Conversely, however, maintaining the integrity of the democratic system of our country vastly trumps doing so for a law school club. While Sen. Hawley is unlikely to succeed in his bid to hinder President-elect Biden from taking office, he is setting a dangerous precedent such that one day, a hostile Congress could overturn a rightful presidential election.

The courts have ruled repeatedly that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Some speculate that Sen. Hawley is simply posturing to position himself for his own presidential run someday. Even if this provided ethical cover for his actions (spoiler: it doesnt), he has the intelligence to find better tactics than erodingour democratic system.

Irina D. Manta is Professor of Law and Founding Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University'sMaurice A. Deane School of Law. Follow her on Twitter:@irina_manta

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/01/05/trump-lost-senator-josh-hawley-accept-result-like-i-did-column/4114231001/

Read more from the original source:

I lost a law school election to Josh Hawley. I moved on then, and he should now on Trump. - USA TODAY

‘The Upswing,’ Social Connectedness and Wile E. Coyote | Confessions of a Community College Dean – Inside Higher Ed

Along with celebrating the holidays and taking a badly needed break from email, one of the happier aspects of the break was getting a chance to read long-form prose in big, uninterrupted chunks. So I put on my political theorist hat for a while and read Robert Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garretts new book, The Upswing.

Putnam is best known for his earlier work on social capital, especially Bowling Alone. The new book is about social connectedness and its rise and fall in the United States over the last century. Social connectedness here refers to behaviors indicating concern for a larger group. Thats a necessarily broad brush, but Putnam and Garrett spend several chapters triangulating its meaning through quantitative analyses of trends ranging from age of first marriage to the choice of uncommon baby names to church attendance to pronoun use in literature to political ticket splitting. In case after case, they trace an I-We-I curve in which the culture of individualism appears not as an inexplicable deviation from recorded history, but as a recurring feature. In the early 20th century, as they tell it, individualism was rampant in the United States. Concerns for we got stronger from then until the early 1960s. Somewhere in the mid-1960s, the curve changed direction, and the we culture started abruptly to move back to a me culture.

Although theyre careful to tread lightly on the politics of it, it becomes clear that much of what progressives care about assumes some identification with a larger we. To the extent that appeals based on we fall flat, progressive causes will struggle. Putnam and Garrett use that framework, and their data, to argue that the popular image of civil rights progress is largely backward: in their telling, Black Americans economic situation was improving markedly throughout the early 20th century, with the upward slope plateauing after the 60s. Putnam and Garrett repeatedly use the image of taking the foot off the gas on all sorts of measures of social progress after the 60s, with varying degrees of plausibility. (They also make some weird unforced errors, such as the claim that President Carter initiated an affirmative action program to help correct gender imbalances in 1974. President Carter took office in 1977.) The claim is that when Americans were expanding the circle of we, great progress was possible; when the culture shifted to me, even the force of changed laws wasnt enough to keep progress moving forward.

As with any sweeping historical claim, its easy to find examples on both sides. For instance, much of the anxiety around conformity among 1950s social critics reflected a concern that the culture of we had grown too strong. The Lonely Crowd, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit and The Organization Man were all, in various ways, expressions of the fear of conformism gone too far. (Nearly every episode of The Twilight Zone can be seen the same way. Ayn Rands oeuvre is the reductio ad absurdum of this critique.) Having just seen the Russian revolution, the rise of Nazism, the rise of the modern corporation and two world wars in three decades, many thinkers of the time subsumed all of those under the category of collectivism. Much of the countercultural fixation in the 60s and 70s on smallness, localism and authenticity can be understood as a reaction to too much we.

In the decades since, by Putnam and Garretts argument, a sort of proto-libertarianism has become cultural common sense. We can see that in the decline of/assault on private sector unions, the spread of tax revolts and all manner of risk-shifting from the larger society to its individual members, such as the replacement of defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution accounts. In 2016, a major-party presidential candidate declared on national television that tax evasion makes [him] smart, and he got elected anyway. Thats quite a distance, conceptually, from buy war bonds. Even the areas in which progressive causes have won, such as greater respect for the LGBTQ community, are broadly compatible with a libertarian outlook: in the current vernacular, you do you.

Putnam and Garrett get a lot right. I often claim that the reason community colleges struggle is that they were built to create a middle class for a country that no longer wants one. The chronology fits: the bulk of community colleges in the U.S. were established in the 1960s, just as the we culture was cresting. In their unabashed inclusivity, community colleges stand as living monuments to the idea of expanding the circle of we. As that cultural strand has been increasingly occluded by a more self-centered one, community colleges (and public institutions generally) have struggled. If education is understood as a private good, rather than a public one, then the community part of community colleges is an awkward fit. Perhaps thats why some community colleges are dropping that word from their names entirely. Now we use taxpayer funding to publish a college scorecard, to enable students to calculate the best return on investment. Thats not how public goods were ever supposed to work.

Still, something about their narrative didnt seem quite right. And thats where I turn to another great midcentury American thinker, Chuck Jones.

Jones was one of the minds behind Looney Tunes. My favorite of his creations was Wile E. Coyote, a hapless predator forever chasing the elusive Roadrunner. Wile E. was a tinkerer, in his way, though his affinity for Acme products never turned out well. One of the recurring jokes was that Wile E. would regularly find himself suspended in midair, having run off the side of a road, but he wouldnt fall until he looked down. Gravity didnt kick in until he looked. Once he realized what had happened, he blinked forlornly at the fourth wall and fell, landing with a cloud of dust.

When I tried summarizing The Upswing to my daughter, and I got to the part where the curve inflected in the 60s, she immediately asked the right question: Why then? Why then, as opposed to 10 years earlier or 10 years later? What was so special about the mid-60s?

Its about race, and the category of we.

If the book took a view beyond the U.S., it might have noted that more racially homogeneous industrialized societies adopted social democratic reforms much more quickly and thoroughly than the U.S. did. The vaunted bipartisanship of Congress in the 1950s was premised on racial exclusion in which both parties were complicit, if in different ways. The period of an increasingly we culture was also a period of severe immigration restrictions, as well as Jim Crow. We didnt mind locking up Japanese Americans in internment camps during the war, or making blackface singers some of the most popular entertainers in the country. The we at the time was defined against a clear and unambiguous they.

In the mid-60s, the boundaries between the we and the they were destabilized in ways that led many white Americans to start turning away from a common culture. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act were abrupt shocks to many; looser immigration restrictions quickly led to a cultural diversification beyond what many white Americans took as normal. Although Christopher Laschs title The Culture of Narcissism often gets used as shorthand to describe selfishness, Laschs use of the term was more deliberate than that. He noted that what killed Narcissus, in the story, wasnt exactly selfishness; it was the inability to see where he ended and the pond began. Narcissism, in his telling, is the loss of clear boundaries between self and other. One reaction to that loss of boundaries is an anxious effort to fortify new boundaries. Imposing order, whether by building walls or by withdrawing from the public sphere to a self-contained bubble, offers the (ultimately false) promise of restoring a lost sense of security.

In other words, its not a coincidence that the moment at which much of white America was compelled to look was the moment at which many whites started to withdraw from the we culture. Like Wile E., the majority culture had been in an unsustainable position for some time, but didnt have to face it; once it did, it couldnt unsee what it saw. At this point, several decades along, a certain strain of herrenvolk populism has become a sort of lifestyle brand. Its based on the assumption that if Wile E. never looked, he never would have fallen. Its determined not to let its followers make that mistake.

The task for those of us who believe in inclusion as an ethical imperative is much more difficult than just waiting for the next turn of the cycle. It involves recognizing just how complicated a category like we actually is, and how much of it relies on contrast with a they. William James recognized the issue over a century ago, when he lamented American intervention in the Philippines. Noting how combat often brings out valor and loyalty, he called for a moral equivalent of war that would draw out those same virtues, without the brutality or imperialism. Banding together against a virus, or against a climate catastrophe, is still banding together. That may explain why some otherwise-intelligent people are so offended by public health campaigns; the campaigns imply the existence of a public, and the usefulness of collective action.

Thats exactly what makes them effective. Theres a lesson in there, if one is willing to look.

Inclusion is a choice. It has to be made over and over again, in ways large and small. Putnam and Garrett offer some sense of just how expansive the choice is, and how high the stakes are. On that, I couldnt agree more.

Read more:

'The Upswing,' Social Connectedness and Wile E. Coyote | Confessions of a Community College Dean - Inside Higher Ed

Here we go again: What to expect as Georgia counts votes – Chattanooga Times Free Press

ATLANTA (AP) This week will find us back in a familiar place waiting for Georgia to count votes.

With control of the U.S. Senate at stake, all eyes are on a runoff election that has Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler facing Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. Millions of dollars have poured in, Georgians have been bombarded by advertisements and messages urging them to vote, and both sides have sent their heavy hitters to help turn out voters.

Some things to keep in mind as the polls close Tuesday night:

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Perdue got about 88,000 more votes than Ossoff in the general election, but a Libertarian candidate's 115,000 votes kept him from topping 50%, which is required to win. Gov. Brian Kemp appointed Loeffler to the Senate in December 2019 after Sen. Johnny Isakson stepped down. She and Warnock were competing in a 20-candidate special election to serve the two years remaining in Isakson's term. Warnock got 1.6 million votes, while Loeffler got nearly 1.3 million and Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Collins placed third with nearly a million votes.

WHEN DOES THE BALLOT COUNTING START?

The polls are set to close at 7 p.m. EST on Election Day, and that's when ballot counting can begin. Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted.

No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. But a state election board rule requires county election officials to begin processing absentee ballots verifying signatures on the outer envelope, opening the envelopes and scanning the ballots before Election Day. That should speed things up on election night. Still, some absentee ballots received by mail or in drop boxes up until 7 p.m. on Election Day will still need to be processed.

WILL WE KNOW THE WINNER ON ELECTION NIGHT?

Just like in November, it's very possible Americans will go to bed without knowing who won. All indicators point to the likelihood of very tight margins in both races.

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, often declare winners on election night based on the results that are in, voter surveys and other political data.

But in a close race, more of the vote may need to be counted before the AP can call a winner.

THE LEAD MAY VERY WELL SHIFT AS VOTES ARE COUNTED

In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first.

Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes. Democratic candidates could also make late surges because of late-counted mail ballots, which heavily favored Ossoff and Warnock, as well as Joe Biden, in November.

In November, Perdue held a lead of about 380,000 votes over Ossoff at 10 p.m. EST on election night. But Perdue's lead eventually fell below 90,000.

In a very tight race, it could take several days to determine a winner. In November, more than 5 percent of Georgia's votes were counted after noon on the day after Election Day. At that time, Donald Trump led Biden by 100,000 votes in a race that Biden eventually won after all the mail ballots were counted.

GEORGIA'S DONE A LOT OF BALLOT COUNTING ALREADY THIS ELECTION CYCLE

That is true and the trend could continue with the runoff. Under Georgia law, if the margin separating the candidates is within 0.5%, the losing candidate has the right to ask for a recount. That would be done by running the ballots through the scanners again, as happened when President Donald Trump requested a recount after the results showed him losing to Biden by about 12,000 votes.

But we're not likely to see a full hand recount like the one done for the presidential race during the general election. That was triggered by a requirement that one race be audited by hand. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger chose to audit the presidential race and said the close margin in that contest required a full recount. Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs said the audit requirement doesn't apply to runoff elections.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more here:

Here we go again: What to expect as Georgia counts votes - Chattanooga Times Free Press

Letter: The Libertarian Party is not centrist | INFORUM – INFORUM

Tanner Cook must not have access to a dictionary, because if he did, hed understand that libertarianism reflects an extreme hands-off political policy. Libertarians currently have found a home in the Republican Party. Cases in point: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and his father, former-presidential hopeful Ron Paul, now retired but who served in Congress representing two different Texas congressional districts. Ron held office both as a Libertarian and as a Republican. Rand prides himself on his Tea Party affiliation.

Americans for Prosperity is a libertarian-conservative political advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers, David and Charles. AFP has supported the Tea Party. David, now deceased, ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980.

If the Kochs personify what it is to be a Libertarian, Id look elsewhere for insight if I were Cookunless, that is, Cook has no concern whatsoever for the environment. Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have a long and tarnished reputation regarding environmental stewardship, and it is mostly likely for this reason that Charles Koch abhors oversighti.e., governmental regulation.

A laissez-faire philosophy regarding the handling of fossil fuels and other industrial-grade pollutants guarantees a recipe for certain disaster. Heres one nearby example of the Kochs environmental record: In 1999, Koch Petroleum Group acknowledged that it had negligently discharged hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands from its refinery in Rosemount, Minn., and that it had illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River.

If thats not extreme, I guess I dont know what is.

Hulse lives in Fargo.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

View original post here:

Letter: The Libertarian Party is not centrist | INFORUM - INFORUM

Meet the Highest-Polling Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate in the Country – Reason

Donald Rainwater, the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) candidate for governor of Indiana, has racked up some unprecedented polling numbers for a Libertarian in a race in which both major parties are running candidates. The 57-year-old Navy veteran and information technology professional hit as high as 24 percent in a Change Research poll back in September.

While that very high result was an outlier, Rainwater has in the past week polled at 14 percent (in a Ragnar Research Partners poll) and 15 percent (in a Cygnal poll). Previous Libertarian candidates for governor in Indiana earned 3.2 percent of the final vote in 2016, and 4 percent in 2012.

The secret to this unusually high polling for the L.P.'s candidate seems to be voter backlash to incumbent Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb's reaction to COVID-19, seen by Rainwater and many voters, according to local media reports, as unduly authoritarian. Rainwater said in a phone interview yesterday that, "during the pandemic year [Holcomb] has been able to declare an emergency and then he has ruled by executive order without bringing the General Assembly into the conversation."

Holcomb's COVID-19 reaction included "threatening mask mandates with criminal penalties, then he backed off that when his own party's attorney general said you can't do that," Rainwater says. He slammed Holcomb for trying to designate Easter church gatherings as nonessential. Rainwater thinks individuals should make their own choices about protecting themselves and others from the risks of COVID-19, without forced government shutdowns of businesses or gatherings.

In general, Rainwater accuses the Republican incumbent of being "really out of touch with how to govern with the consent of the governed," chiding him as well for fee and tax increases. When voters saw that, "they looked around to see if anybody is actually talking about limited government and preserving the Bill of Rights," leading them to Rainwater and the L.P.

"I don't think there's anything special about me," says Rainwater, who got nearly 40 percent of the vote in his 2019 run for mayor of Westfield, Indiana, against a Republican incumbent. "There's something special about the message of limited government and government actually safeguarding individual freedom and rights. In the state of Indiana, I believe the situation that has transpired due to the pandemic has shone a very bright light on what is wrong with big government. There are a lot of people just tired of the status quo and tired of the government picking winners and losers and making decisions about who it's OK to sacrifice in order to project somebody else. That has caused people to start looking for that limited government option."

Rainwater's campaign website issue page is strongly against various taxes, including the personal income tax, residential property tax, and yearly vehicle registration fees, all of which he would like to ax. His first L.P. run, which was for the state Senate in 2016, was inspired by his view that Indiana's Republicans were insufficiently anti-taxation.

Rainwater says Indiana's existing 7 percent sales tax ought to be enough to fund the things a state government needs to do. "We need to focus on better government, which means we need to upgrade and modernize and not just 'modernize' in word but physically do the work of updating processes and systems within state government, many of which are decades old," he says, "and make government more cost-effective, and do that within the context of not eliminating any services that citizens currently expect from state government."

Rainwater also emphasizes that three states surrounding Indiana have legalized cannabis for medicinal or recreational adult use, and he strongly wants Indiana to join them. In a legal cannabis environment, Rainwater says, "the agricultural, manufacturing, and retail possibilities for Hoosiers are going to be significant, and that will generate additional sales tax revenue."

The organization that runs the state's political debates has long been friendly to third parties, Rainwater says, so it was not unique that he participated on an equal basis with the incumbent and his Democratic challenger Woody Myers in virtual debates twice. An online poll conducted by WEHT Eyewitness News asking who won one of the debates had Rainwater receiving 187 out of 203 votes cast.

Rainwater's high polling helped spur an unusually large amount of fundraising, a majority from out-of-state libertarians wanting to see results worth bragging about. He says he's pulled around $250,000, "and spent near all of it," which allowed him to pay for radio and TV commercials. (Holcomb raised over $10 million.)

Volunteers have crowdsourced funds for billboards. With door-to-door campaigning not as prominent as in a normal year, his people are contacting voters via web messages and phone banking for getting out the vote. Rainwater is thrilled that he can make a video of him saying things once and reach audiences far larger than would ever show up to a physical event, thanks to virtual avenues.

"We are getting support from traditional Republican voters and traditional Democratic voters," Rainwater says, guessing his pull is roughly 70-30 between the two major parties. "People who don't normally look at Libertarians are looking at Libertarians. I get emails and Facebook messages all the time from people who say, 'I voted this way all my life, but now I look at your campaign, and I think I'm more Libertarian than whatever it is I was voting for before.'"

View original post here:

Meet the Highest-Polling Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate in the Country - Reason

Newly Launched Chicago Thinker Aims to Promote Conservative and Libertarian Views on Campus – The Chicago Maroon

This past summer, third-years Audrey Unverferth and Evita Duffy founded the Chicago Thinker, a student newspaper publishing news and opinions from conservative and libertarian points of view. The papers purpose is to defend conservative and libertarian perspectives in a community that is increasingly intolerant of such voices, according to the Thinkers mission statement.

Unverferth, who serves as both editor-in-chief and publisher, and Duffy, the papers managing editor, hope that the Thinker provides a platform for conservative and libertarian students to express their ideas to the University of Chicago community. I think it's necessary to have a platform for conservatives and libertarians to thoughtfully speak, and then to hopefully engage with others, Unverferth said.

Part of our mission is to expose the student body to a different school of thought, to expose them to conservative and libertarian ideas that aren't usually seen in the campus community, Duffy said.

Duffy and Unverferth said the Thinkers founding was prompted by their perception that the campus community is unwilling to engage with conservative and libertarian ideas.

Last March, a post by the University of Chicagos Institute of Politics (IOP) featured Duffy holding a sign that read I vote because the coronavirus wont destroy America, but socialism will. The photo sparked widespread controversy, inspiring hundreds of posts on social media, some substantive and some aimed at Duffys personal character. The incident drew a response from IOP Director David Axelrod.

In May 2019, hundreds of students gathered to protest a bill that Brett Barbin, then a fourth-year College Council representative and head of the University of Chicago College Republicans, proposed to College Council that would have banned student life fees from being used to fund abortions.

The problem that we're currently facing on campus right now is that conservatives and libertarians are too afraid to speak because of the extraordinary social consequences that individuals like Evita and Brett Barbin have experienced, Unverferth said.

Nonetheless, Unverferth said the editors of the Thinker are open to publishing work that reflects other points of view. We happily consider work by those from across the political spectrum, she said. We love to communicate across the political aisle, and we disagree, behind closed doors, and also in our pages frequently, so we're not an echo chamber.

Most of the articles published so far by the Thinker address expressly political topics like qualified immunity and the 2020 elections, but Unverferth wants to publish other content in the future. I think it would be boring for our readers if we only focused on politics, she said. And so I would really like to expand to cover various arts events and sports games, et cetera.

Writers are going to focus on stories that they think are important to inform the student body [about] at UChicago, she said. They'll cover subjects on everything from what's happening on campus to what's happening abroad.

The Chicago Thinker is currently a digital-only publication, but Unverferth hopes to publish a physical edition in the future. Her plans, however, have been complicated given the ongoing pandemic. My goal is to go into print as soon as feasible, she said. I think life needs to resume a little bit more to normal, but I would really love to have a print edition by the end of the school year.

Unverferth confirmed that the Thinker received grant funding from Collegiate Network, a program that supports conservative and libertarian publications on college campuses. The organization is operated by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a nonprofit that supports conservative college students by hosting debates and lectures, providing networking opportunities, and funding conservative student organizations, publications, and fellowships.

They provided us with a grant to launch our newspaper, said Unverferth. They provide mentorship. And in the case of the Chicago Thinker, they provided the funding to build our website.

Publications supported by Collegiate Network include The Princeton Tory, The Dartmouth Review, and the recently launched Danforth Dispatch at Washington University in St. Louis. ISIs website lists Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who started The Federalist as an undergraduate at Columbia University, and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who started The Stanford Review as an undergraduate, among the organizations alumni.

Unverferth said that backing by the ISI will not influence editorial decisions at the Thinker. We choose how to spend our grant money, we choose what to publish, we chose our name, she said. They do not possess any editorial control whatsoever upon what we publish, but they have provided our primary source of funding.

Looking forward, Unverferth and Duffy hope to raise money to start printing physical copies of the paper. We're planning to create some form of fundraisers so that we can raise money in order to go into print, and more in conversations with various organizations and alumni and others to obtain funding, Unverferth said.

Link:

Newly Launched Chicago Thinker Aims to Promote Conservative and Libertarian Views on Campus - The Chicago Maroon

Libertarian candidates share conversation and coffee – The Wellsboro Gazette

Liz Terwilliger, Libertarian candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from PAs 12th District, and Noyes Lawton, Libertarian candidate for PA State Representative from District 68, met with residents at Clock Works Coffee in Westfield.

Discussion included topics of small businesses, difficulties getting signatures during the COVID-19 season, inflation and over-regulation.

The Oct. 28 event was held so locals could share what was on their minds before the election. Terwilliger and Lawton both said they have tried to help people understand there are parties for election other than just Republican or Democrat.

We need to start discussing everybody. It doesnt matter what party. We need to talk to each other and come up with solutions. I think through conversation we will have solutions, said Lawton.

The candidates agreed that people of opposing views today are yelling at each other instead of talking. They said its important to talk to find solutions, rather than team-picking. If there can be civil conversations, areas of agreement can be found.

Even though strong emotions can be generated, we need to let each other be human so that we can have a conversation and not just shut down. Lets have a conversation so we can see each others point of view, said Terwilliger.

Lawton said it is important to pay attention to local elections. The decisions of the state representatives and county commissioners have a more immediate impact on community residents versus the decisions of the president, which are watered down and filtered through federal and state departments.

We have become addicted to government and, as soon as we have a problem, we say, Whats the government going to do to fix the problem? instead of saying, What am I going to do to fix the problem? or What are we as a community going to do to fix the problem? said Lawton.

Terwilliger said the community needs to serve the community rather than looking to the government to take over. She said it is important to have representatives who are representative of the people and not just the party or finances.

One of the reasons that I want to keep doing these kinds of things is to keep people connected and have these kinds of conversations about what people would like to see. It is important to be in touch with constituents, said Terwilliger.

The Libertarian candidates said as long as people do not take what does not belong to them and do not hurt people or infringe on their rights, they want people to live their life.

Continued here:

Libertarian candidates share conversation and coffee - The Wellsboro Gazette

Cotton win good news, say parties of 2 rivals – Arkansas Online

Ricky Dale Harrington's landslide loss to Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton on Tuesday represents a high-water mark, thus far, for the Libertarian cause in Arkansas and across the nation.

In unofficial returns, with 2,545 of 2,575 precincts reporting, it was:

Cotton 787,542

Harrington 393,110

The former prison chaplain from Pine Bluff, thus far, had 33.3% of the vote. Two-thirds of the ballots were for Cotton, a first-term incumbent from Little Rock.

"It's a record for a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate anywhere in the United States. Ever. So we're absolutely enthusiastic and appreciative of that showing," said Joe Bishop-Henchman, the national party chairman.

Brian Colas, Cotton's political director, said 66.6% is also a high water mark for an Arkansas Republican in a major statewide race.

[RELATED: Full coverage of elections in Arkansas arkansasonline.com/elections/]

"We wanted to break 60%. We broke 66%," he said. "We're thrilled."

Both sides fared well because they didn't have to split votes with a Democrat.

Josh Mahony of Fayetteville, the party's only candidate, dropped out of the race hours after the filing deadline. Dan Whitfield, a Bella Vista independent, failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

That left voters with just two options: Cotton or Harrington.

Until now, Alaskan Joe Miller was the top-performing Libertarian Senate candidate; he captured 29.2% of the vote when he ran in 2016.

Miller was well-known by voters -- he'd lost a Senate bid in 2010, despite winning the Republican Party nomination.

Harrington, on the other hand, was a political newcomer.

Despite having minimal name recognition and even less money, Harrington, 35, captured nearly as many votes in Arkansas as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

He easily outpaced other Libertarians on the Arkansas ballot, including the party's presidential nominee, Jo Jorgensen of South Carolina, who finished with 13,024 votes.

Cotton was leading in 72 of the state's 75 counties, but Harrington finished ahead in Pulaski, Jefferson and Phillips counties. All three are Democratic strongholds.

Hal Bass, a political science professor emeritus at Ouachita Baptist University, portrayed Tuesday's vote as an aberration.

"It was just a protest vote by Democrats," he said.

"That does not indicate that there is a Libertarian constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas. It does indicate that there's an anti-Cotton constituency of that magnitude in Arkansas," he said.

Harrington, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, fared relatively well despite being heavily outspent.

His campaign had collected $68,191 as of Oct. 14; Cotton had collected more than $12.8 million.

Harrington surpassed the most recent pollster's predictions.

A Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College survey Oct. 19 Monday showed Cotton winning, 62% to 27% with 10% undecided.

The Arkansas Poll, released Oct. 28, had Cotton even further ahead, 75%-20%.

Cotton's internal polling had pointed to a closer race. In the closing days, he made repeated trips to Arkansas, while also working elsewhere to push for continuing Republican control of the Senate.

Rather than criticizing his opponent, Cotton talked about his own record and priorities.

"The campaign knew that the vast majority of Arkansans agreed with Sen. Cotton on the issues, so that's what our campaign prioritized," Colas said.

In addition to campaigning in Arkansas, Cotton also campaigned for vulnerable Senate colleagues, making stops in Georgia, Montana, Colorado and elsewhere.

Most of the candidates he backed ended up winning.

Read more here:

Cotton win good news, say parties of 2 rivals - Arkansas Online

Chad C. Meek, Author, Futurist Has Just Released a Book Entitled The New Libertarian Party, Revolution for America – PRNewswire

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- In his thought-provoking book, Meek points out how the 1% has co-opted the United States political system and government, which has marginalized the American People into a separate downtrodden serfdom class of citizens.

The 62-year-old futurist explains that a perfect storm has occurred that has completely adulterated every American Government Institution that includes the Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the Federal Reserve.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policyAn equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."

In his abstract, Meek offers solutions to put the power back in the American People's hands. A single financial transaction tax, citizen jurists, universal income, universal education, on-line voting, and reducing the national voting age to 16.

The New Libertarian Party's (N.L.P) platform, also called the Great American Consolidation, along with the rapid adoption of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence, will revolutionize how our government will operate within the next five years.

Meek states, "For Generations X, Y, Z, the traditional political parties offer zero solutions to a Fascist controlled government that has lost its mind and moral compass.

He further adds, "Nothing will change with the current antiquated infrastructure other than the rich getting richer."

The N.L.P genesis began at a place called Giant Rock, located in the Mohave Desert. Chad C. Meek lived here during this discovery time and witnessed the thousands of people who attended the annual space convention over three decades.

Meek's first novel and a screenplay called Giant Rock were released in 2016 and profiled his family's and others' experiences who made direct contact with extraterrestrial entities.

The people of Giant Rock created a movement led by his uncle George Van Tassel circa 1910-1978, which promoted Peace, U.F.O. disclosure, free-energy, and a non-nuclear carbon-free world.

"The ideas that my uncle and the eclectic group out at Giant Rock were able to channel from the Universal Mind were 50 years before their time."

Books available on Amazon

http://www.nlpamerican.com

http://www.giantrockthemovie.com

Media Contact:Chad Meek[emailprotected]805-308-1949

SOURCE Chad C. Meek

View original post here:

Chad C. Meek, Author, Futurist Has Just Released a Book Entitled The New Libertarian Party, Revolution for America - PRNewswire