Category Archives: Libertarian

All the views that are fit to televise. Photo: Lou Rocco/ABC

These are tough times for pundits. Congress is in recess. The major organs of political reporting are understaffed and churning out take fodder at a tepid rate. Other than the rapidly worsening mass-death event thats threatening to capsize the nations hospital system and economy, there isnt much news to report.

So, Im going to branch out a bit here and try my hand at womens-daytime-talk-show analysis.

ABCs The View has long been a dominant player in that space. Originally created by Barbara Walters, the show aims to bring four to five women of divergent backgrounds, generations, and interpersonal styles into lively, intelligent conversation about the news of the day. The shows lineup has never been anywhere near as demographically or ideologically diverse as the American public. But its been especially homogeneous since this past July, when it lost its resident conservative, Meghan McCain. In the months since, The View has cycled through a parade of conservative guest co-hosts including libertarian commentator S.E. Cupp, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and exhypothetical Ted Cruz presidential running mate Carly Fiorina but has failed to settle on a new, permanent representative of red America.

This week, Politico reported that three of the shows longtime co-hosts Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Sunny Hostin issued the producers an ultimatum before their holiday break: Theyre tired of adjusting to the rotating cast of token Republicans, and they want a permanent hire pronto.

But the higher-ups are struggling to find the right candidate. The basic problem is that the producers want a conservative who credibly represents the views of Republican news consumers. But they also want one who is not a denier of the 2020 election results or seen as flirting too heavily with fringe conspiracy theories or the MAGA wing of the GOP. Put differently: They dont want another NeverTrump Republican who will chummily respond to the liberal hosts musings with yes, but qualifications (their focus groups suggest that viewers like clash). But they also dont want an unvaccinated authoritarian whos going to spit venom in Joy Behars face.

Alas, the shows producers arent having an easy time finding a conservative whos so much as willing to abide by New Yorks public-health laws. As the Daily Beast reports, The View was in talks with Fox News contributor Lisa Marie Boothe earlier this year. But their discussions came to halt when Boothe made it clear that she would not, under any circumstances, vaccinate herself against COVID-19.

The basic challenge currently confronting The View has been flummoxing other mainstream-media enterprises since Donald Trumps election. During the Reagan-Bush era, when country-club Republicans enjoyed pride of place in red America, it was not difficult to find conservative commentators who evangelized for the partys animating objectives and honored the norms of cosmopolitan media elites. There is no irreconcilable conflict between advocating for regressive tax cuts and treating your liberal colleagues with basic courtesy while everyone respects the bedrock conventions of a liberal democracy. But today, owning liberal cultural elites and denying the legitimacy of elections that Democrats win are more central to Republican politics than supply-side economics or neoconservative foreign policy.

Even before Trumps ascent, the voting base for old-style respectable Republicanism was steadily declining. But the demagogues conquest of the GOP accelerated the preexisting movement of (predominately) college-educated, pro-Establishment voters into the Democratic coalition and working-class, low-trust, illiberal voters into the Republican one. Trump also made this realignment more conspicuous by ending the Bushites dominance of the partys commanding heights. Before Trumps election, the New York Times could reserve column inches for David Brooks and Ross Douthat and tell itself its Opinion page gave voice to all of the nations dominant ideological tendencies. Afterward, the paper was forced to confront the choice between mainstream editorial standards and ideological inclusion. Ultimately, a combination of institutional norms and financial incentives principally, the need to retain the good graces of an overwhelmingly liberal subscriber base has kept the Times from adding an unabashed Trumpist to its stable of columnists. (Meanwhile, education polarization has transformed Brooks into a de facto Biden Democrat.)

To be sure, the discontinuities between the pre- and post-Trump GOPs are often exaggerated; the Brooks Brothers riot was nearly as audacious an assault on democracy as January 6 and much more effective. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the bow-tied libertarian Tucker Carlson of yesteryear was easier to integrate into a mainstream cable networks panel discussion or liberal newspapers op-ed page than the red-faced proto-white nationalist Tucker who now owns Fox Newss eight-oclock hour.

To a large extent, conservative media drove the GOPs illiberal transformation. But this was not an entirely top-down affair, in which reactionary propagandists dictated the desires of the Republican faithful. Rather, conservative media and its audience mutually radicalized each other in a feedback loop. Just as problem drinkers provide the alcohol industry with the majority of its sales, so the most ideologically extreme Republicans provide right-wing media with the bulk of their everyday viewers and listeners.Most Republican voters will be more engaged by paranoid conspiracy theories and unhinged grievance-mongering than by lectures on the (dubious) disemployment effects of minimum-wage hikes. This is especially true of the subset thats most interested in watching political talk shows.

Thus right-wing media has reflected and amplified the illiberal impulses of the conservative base back to it, undermining trust in the Republican Establishment and cultivating an appetite for a more vicious and authoritarian style of conservative politics. In 2016, Fox News briefly tried to domesticate the monster it had created, assuming an unabashedly adversarial posture toward Trump at the first 2016 GOP primary debate. It found that it could not herd its viewers.

After the 2020 election, the network relearned this lesson. Initially, Fox News resisted a full embrace of Trumps attacks on the legitimacy of Bidens victory and suddenly found itself bleeding audience share to Newsmax, One America News Network, and other conservative channels willing to affirm Trumps big lie.

All of which is to say: The View cant greatly expand its appealamong conservative political-infotainment junkies while shunning fringe conspiracists or the MAGA wing of the GOP. Nearly two-thirds of Republican voters believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. The partys most highly engaged supporters are so distrustful of established expertise and credulous of conspiracy theories that theyve led conservative state governments and media outlets to become objectively pro-COVID. In 2021, to be a true Republican is to broadcast contempt for cosmopolitan elites and the formal political process. Thats mainly a problem for our democracy. But its also a challenge for producers of some womens daytime talk shows.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Read the rest here:

Why The View Is Struggling to Find a New Token Conservative - New York Magazine

The city is confident that the court will side with us once again as they have previously, a city spokesman said in a statement regarding the appeal.

Jeffrey Thornton, Janice Craig, Hilda Brucker and Byron Billingsley were all cited between 2015 and 2017 for various incidents in Doraville. Thornton and Brucker were charged with code enforcement violations, while Craig and Billingsley received traffic citations.

All four eventually pleaded no contest or guilty and were ordered to pay fines varying from $100 to $300.

In 2018, they filed a lawsuit claiming the citys fining habits were out of control. In December 2020, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ruled in the citys favor. (Story continues below timeline.)

Jeffrey Thornton was cited for having a trailer parked on his grass and logs in his backyard. He was found guilty and received a $300 fine, which was later dropped since Thornton was not able to pay the fine.

Janice Craig received a traffic ticket after being accused of improperly changing lanes and holding up traffic. Craig, who isnt a Doraville resident, pleaded guilty and received a $215 fine.

Hilda Brucker received citations for rotted wood and chipped paint on her house, weeds and overgrown vegetation in her yard and a crumbling driveway. She ultimately pleaded no contest to a charge and received a $100 fine and six months of probation.

Byron Billingsley received a traffic ticket after being accused of improperly changing lanes to get around a large truck. Billingsley, who worked in Doraville at the time, pleaded guilty to a $100 fine.

Plaintiffs filed their two-count complaint for declaratory injunctive relief and for nominal damages.

A federal judge denied Doravilles motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The district court granted the citys motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs motion.

Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.

They appeared in court to argue their case. Their attorney Joshua House said he expects the court to release their ruling next spring.

House said Storys ruling doesnt match legal precedent, and no one needs to lose a job to prove his case.

Doraville says, Well look, theres no evidence that we ever fired a judge because he didnt bring in enough money, House said in a phone interview. And our argument is that you dont have to wait for Doraville to actually do that horrible thing... House said in a phone interview.

Harvey Gray, the attorney representing Doraville, said the case should never have gotten this far, let alone to the appeal stage.

He said the four plaintiffs should have appealed their individual cases if they felt they werent being given due process.

The only irreparable injury that the two traffic court case plaintiffs (Craig and Billingsley) said is we might drive through Doraville again, and were scared were going to get a ticket, Gray said Dec. 16 in court. Well, the answer is dont violate the law.

House argued in court that municipal fees are crucial for Doraville to balance its budget.

In 2010, about 35% of the citys general revenue came from municipal fees. Since 2015, that figure has steadily decreased, and it has dropped below 10% since 2020. House said fines and fees comprise just 1.4% of the average American citys revenue.

Doraville funding from traffic tickets

Doraville gets an unusually large percentage of revenue from traffic tickets, but that number has declined as it has fended off lawsuits. The 2021 budget figure is a budget estimate, while the other figures consist of actual revenue generated by fines and fees.

SOURCE: City of Doraville

Both House and the city said the COVID-19 pandemic likely played a factor in the recent dip, but House added the decline could be a result from the lawsuit. The citys statement primarily attributed the decline to an increase in population.

Over the last four years, fines and fees have made up a decreasing portion of our budget thanks to explosive growth throughout the city and improved compliance with our laws, the citys statement said. Our population has shot up 27% since 2010 and new businesses are moving in every month.

House said the city can resolve its alleged conflict of interest by either relying less on fees to balance its budget or providing judges with more job security, such as lifetime tenure or making them elected officials.

Councilman Andy Yeoman told the AJC in an email that the City Council is not dictating how judges rule on their cases.

The issue this libertarian organization is trying to resolve in the federal court is: are municipal judges agents of city councils, Yeomans email said. This issue as it relates to Doraville is absurd, as the prior judge served for 28 years through nearly three decades of different councils. Two of the current judges Ive never met or spoken to.

He added that this lawsuit wont lead to any meaningful code enforcement reform, which he said is needed in many cities.

This lawsuit is a distraction to genuine reforms and progressive changes, Yeoman said.

House said he expects a ruling on the appeal sometime in spring 2022.

See the original post:

Doraville back in court over allegedly padding budget with fines, fees - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

In mid-December, US Senate Democrats cried uncle, at least temporarily, pulling President Bidens $2 trillion Build Back Better agenda out from under the Christmas Tree. If the bill makes it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote, it wont be this year.

Im a big fan of gridlock, and not a fan at all of Bidens Big Basket of Boondoggles, so I cant say Im terribly unhappy about this. Thanks, Joe Manchin!

On the other hand, it seems to me that Democrats are missing a chance to save themselves a savage beating in next Novembers midterms. Which, as much as I dislike the Republicans too, might not be a bad thing from the gridlock is good standpoint, but lets look at it as a nuts-and-bolts problem.

Build Back Better is whats commonly called an omnibus bill. Put simply, Democrats threw in the kitchen sink and plunked down 2,000+ pages of everything any Democrat might want.

The point of an omnibus bill is that it lets the members of the majority party bring pressure on each other to get unanimity.

Congresswoman X wants, say, a child tax credit, but doesnt want to expand Medicare to cover hearing aids (both of these are in Build Back Better).

Congressman Y wants the hearing aids but not the child tax credit.

If both things go in the omnibus bill, Congresswoman X and Congressman Y must both support what they dont want to get what they do.

But that pressure can run in both directions. If Congresswoman X hates the hearing aid provision so much that shell give up the child tax credit to avoid supporting it (and Congressman Y vice versa), the bill dies.

Democrats are looking at two plausible plays for support next year.

One is to get Build Back Better passed so that they can brag on how much they got done, and ask voters to expand their mandate.

The other is to blame those darn Republican obstructionists (or Joe Manchin) for the fact that they got nothing done, and ask voters to give them more seats. That approach frankly doesnt work too often or well.

There is, however, a third option.

There are probably a few reasonably popular even bipartisan things in Build Back Better. Why not break these popular items out into single-issue bills that can actually pass? I dont support the child tax credit, but I bet some Republican votes could be found for some version of it.

Theres a good argument to be made that this is how Congress should handle EVERYTHING. One subject per bill would substantially reduce gridlock.

It would also give congressional Democrats a third, better campaign pitch for midterm voters: We got some stuff you like DONE reward us!

If Democrats step off the omnibus and walk those individual bills up Capitol Hill, they might staunch their bleeding campaign wounds and do reasonably well next November. That might or might not be good for the country, but it would be good for them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).

He lives and works in north central Florida.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Read the original:

Thomas Knapp: Gridlock cure: Democrats should get off the (omni)bus and walk - Today's News-Herald

Key facts:

Technical robustness and public legitimacy are essential elements in an anti-censorship cryptocurrency.

According to Buterin, second-layer solutions still have many limitations.

Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, published a thread on the social network Twitter in which he reflects on some of his opinions in previous years and took the opportunity to talk about Bitcoin and its decentralization.

According to Buterin, the decentralization of Bitcoin would not be enough for this network to emerge successfully in the face of extreme regulatory systems imposed by governments. While he did not cite examples or mention specific scenarios, the Ethereum co-founder acknowledged that Bitcoin technology is, in essence, censorship-proof.

The decentralization of Bitcoin would allow it to survive in an extremely hostile regulatory climate, but it could not prosper. A successful strategy to resist censorship requires a combination of technical robustness and public legitimacy.

Vitalik Buterin, Co-founder of Ethereum

In the quoted tweet, Buterin notes that Bitcoin could barely survive in a very rigorous regulatory environment. However, the properties that he considers necessary to successfully overcome censorship are two of Bitcoins strengths. While it is fair to admit that the original cryptocurrency still has a long way to go in terms of technical robustness and public legitimacy, bitcoin is clearly far ahead of altcoins.

In fact, the 2021 was a key year for decentralization in Bitcoin. The Chinese veto on Bitcoin forced miners to emigrate to other latitudes, and thus distribute half of the total hashrate of this network among several countries, which remained concentrated in the Asian giant.

Regarding technological development, recently CriptoNoticias reported that Bitcoin was one of the cryptocurrency projects that has the greatest progress, despite not having extraordinary financing.

It is crucial to keep in mind that the bitcoiner community includes three groups that are primarily responsible for its growth and success: its developers, its miners, and its users.

Bitcoin developers have a duty to improve the efficiency with which the network works while maintaining the libertarian philosophy that gave rise to it. The miners are the power of the network, allowing it to remain safe and active thanks to the energy provided by its hardware. Meanwhile, the users of this cryptocurrency are in charge of promoting its use and adoption, as well as ensuring that the work of the developers favors the majority and not just themselves.

It is also important to note that most of the mechanisms used by governments to regulate and even prohibit the use of Bitcoin arrive at the crossroads between this cryptocurrency and the traditional financial system. That is, in exchange houses, stock exchanges, banks, etc. Bitcoin, as Buterin himself says, has a native system resistant to censorship.

Regarding the promotion of the use of Bitcoin, the co-founder of Ethereum commented something interesting that he himself corroborated in his recent trip to Argentina. Although the adoption of cryptocurrencies is great in this country, stablecoins have a high commercial acceptance. This suggests that many people still trust traditional financial systems, even if they come disguised as blockchain.

Buterin, logically, is someone who is in favor of the coexistence of Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies, or altcoins, as they are known in the bitcoiner ecosystem. This idea was reinforced in her recent tweet thread.

According to the Ethereum co-founder, there are three arguments that he already estimated in 2013 and with which he still agrees, which defend the coexistence of various blockchains and cryptocurrencies that are not necessarily related to each other.

The first of these is that different blockchains optimize the scope of different goals. Second, the costs of having many blockchains are low. By this, the Ethereum co-founder meant that maintaining different blockchains that can interact with each other is not as expensive as it may seem. Although he later admits that it is much more cumbersome than he believed. Finally, according to Buterin, it is important that there is another alternative to Bitcoin, in the event that the work of the main developers is negatively affecting the network.

Despite presenting such pro-altcoin cases, Buterin acknowledges that These arguments have much less force today. However, for him, although the development of second layer solutions (such as Bitcoins Lightning network) may be a more efficient response than a collective of cryptocurrencies and blockchains, in his opinion, there are limitations in this type of technology than a chain main would not face.

Originally posted here:

Bitcoin decentralization would help it survive, but not prosper - Central Valley Business Journal

If you have voted in Pennsylvania, anyone can view your personal information including your name, gender, date of birth, and date you registered to vote. It tells if you are an active or inactive voter, and when you last changed voter status or party affiliation. Also, your residential and mailing addresses, and your polling place are included.

It details the last date you voted, your school, state legislature, and congressional district. It contains your voter history, and the date that record was last changed. Anyone can read this. It just costs $20 on the Pennsylvania Department of States website.

Recently the state Senates Intergovernmental Operations Committees presented arguments for their subpoena to the Commonwealth Court for election processes as well as additional personal information about you. The committee seeks details including guidance issued by the Department of State to county election officials, including training materials and directives. That sounds reasonable.

But in addition, it demands the release to the Committee of voter data including some things that are already publicly available and some that are not. They want your drivers license and the last four digits of your social security number. This is supposedly in the cause of election integrity. But not to worry. The politicians assure us that this additional personal data will be kept secret by them.

How many times will we need to receive apologies from companies and institutions because they suffered a data break-in containing our personal information? In 2021 alone, millions of secure data files were stolen and sold on the dark web. It is becoming clear that the only sure way of protecting personal data is to not provide it.

Given the challenges of data security faced by even the most sophisticated data protection firms, why would we create the tempting target for identity thieves of a single store of personal data? This database would contain your name, address, date of birth, drivers license number and partial social security numbers all in one convenient-to-download file. Drivers license numbers and partial social security numbers, I would argue, are unnecessary for the Committees stated purpose of auditing the election. There is already significant individual voter data available publicly.

This committee demand is an unreasonable waste of resources and a dangerous exposure of voters personal information. Hopefully, the court will see the problems inherent in this plan and act to protect the public from yet another exposure of personal information.

Liz Terwilliger resides in Warren Center. She plans to run for congress in 2022 on the Libertarian ticket.

Read more:

Another threat to personal data | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

I recently found myself in a conversation with a libertarian journalist who was visiting Vienna. Should we be surprised that Austria decided to lock down the unvaccinated and that the government is pushing for mandatory vaccination? he bellowed at me. Was it not the Austrians and the Germans who were first to lock down their minorities in the 1930s? Its the kind of mind-blowing exaggeration that is so typical these days of vaccine skeptics and the anti-lockdown right.

The specter of fascism is never far away in European politics, and accusing your enemies of being the heirs to Hitler has been popular since the end of World War II. But something truly surreal is underway: Traditionally, it was the parties of the far right, some of them with roots in the Nazi past, that were accused of fascist tendencies. Now they are the accusers. Ive even heard some vaccine skeptics and anti-lockdown activists call for a Nuremberg trial for anyone who advocates mandatory vaccination.

Will these attempts to impugn the overweening state and accuse mainstream politicians of medical fascism work? Maybe. A recent survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations indicates that although most West Europeans support the restrictive policies their governments have put in place to fight the coronavirus, many also have mixed feelings. Almost half of Austrians and Germans, the poll found, experience the Covid pandemic as a loss of freedom. Populists are eager to weaponize this.

For the moment, they are failing. Recent elections in Germany, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria indicate that voters are less ready to follow populist leaders than they were just a few years ago. A YouGov-Cambridge Globalism study found in November that populist beliefs had broadly declined in 10 European countries over the past three years but that at the same time, conspiratorial beliefs are on the rise. I worry that the longer the pandemic restrictions continue and the harsher the economic effects are felt, the more likely populists arguments will resonate with the public.

The populist right has in recent months undergone an identity shift. It used to be that these parties claimed, with their positions on immigration and cultural change, to speak for the people, a silent majority. That doesnt work anymore. Austrias Freedom Party, for example, has adopted a hard-line anti-vaccination stance. But holding this position means that it can no longer claim to be the champion of the majority; most Austrians have chosen to get vaccinated. At least in Western Europe, the vaccinated are the majority. Not surprisingly, when populists are in power as they are in Hungary and Poland they adopt vaccine and lockdown policies similar to those introduced by mainstream parties elsewhere.

Populist parties now claim to speak on behalf of a persecuted minority of nonconformists and are repositioning themselves as champions of liberty and individual rights. This may sound familiar to many Americans: They are the same positions held by the American right, even when it is in power. Its now clear that the coronavirus crisis has contributed to the internationalization of the populist right.

This gambit to define freedom as heroic resistance to the interventionist state will likely falter in Europes aging societies, where many worry about the virus. But by opposing pandemic restrictions, these political players will have a better chance of attracting support from members of younger generations who are more likely than their parents to blame their loss of freedom on government policies than on the spread of a deadly virus.

For the young, the pandemic is associated far less with loss of life than with the destruction of their way of life. The European Council on Foreign Relations survey shows that they suspect that they have been turned into invisible victims of their governments risk aversion. It was indicative that in the Freedom Party-backed anti-vaxxer rallies in Vienna, anarchists and other leftists historically much more the territory of the young marched side by side with those who were their archenemies just yesterday.

What does this mean for mainstream politics? In the short term, the situation looks good: The parties of the center have benefited by meeting the majority of peoples expectations for precaution and protection. But by endorsing what increasingly seem like never-ending lockdowns and mandatory vaccination, European governments risk misreading a changing public sentiment.

In this context, the Omicron variant presents a major political risk. It requires a decisive response to prevent severe strains on health care systems, but at the same time, by adopting policies of maximum precaution that were the right approach at the beginning of the pandemic but are more questionable today, governments risk falling into a trap of their own making. The big state is back in a big way but trust in the big state is not.

Europes mainstream political parties are now wagering their legitimacy on their ability to beat back the pandemic. Its a dangerous gamble. Asking people to get vaccinated is good public policy, but it does not guarantee that no one will be infected or that nobody will die. Governments can reduce the risks, but they cannot eliminate them. The paradox is that the higher the percentage of vaccinated people in a society, the less likely it will be to support lockdowns and other restrictive policies. After two years of life marked by a shortage of space made up for by a surplus of time, as the poet Joseph Brodsky once described a prisoners existence, people are tired of being afraid. They expect schools to be open and life to return to something like normality.

The arrival of Omicron makes it clear that the pandemic is not yet over. But many people are already living as if the postpandemic world had arrived. In a moment like this, setting reasonable expectations is probably the best anti-populist policy any government can adopt. We cannot hope to defeat the pandemic; we will have to learn to live with it.

Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies, a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and the author, most recently, of Is It Tomorrow Yet? Paradoxes of the Pandemic.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

More:

Opinion | From the Silent Majority to the Unvaxxed Minority - The New York Times

Prime minister Boris Johnson no hiding place.Tommy London/Alamy Live News

Nobody predicted this scenario prime minister Boris Johnson held at bay by a key section of his own party, able to make decisions only with the aid of the Labour opposition. His Tory opponents may have mustered a hundred votes in the Commons, but all the signs are that a significant number of others nearly joined them. They are the Covid sceptics. And they have now been joined by Lord Frost, who has been crucial to Johnsons Brexit strategy.

What is surprising is that the philosophy that has caused this rebellion is libertarianism, the desire for the State to have as little role as possible in the affairs of its citizens even in the midst of a raging pandemic.

The majority of the public quite like firm guidance and clear rules, and are out of step with this brand of Toryism. One might have expected a rebellion over government incompetence, which is widely disapproved of, and one is overdue concerning the Prime Ministers personal integrity, in which almost nobody has much faith.

But individual liberty? Not having to produce a so-called Covid passport before entering a night-club? Being required to wear a mask when travelling on public transport? Insisting that healthcare workers in day-to-day contact with frail and vulnerable patients should be vaccinated?

These are all measures which enjoy substantial support among the population at large, so Labour is well aligned with public opinion. So for the time being is the Johnson government, though muttering against him is growing louder from within its own ranks.The SpectatorandDaily Telegraphhave taken up the libertarian hue and cry, but not so far theDaily Mail, which has been a thorn in the side of many Tory governments in the past. But there is a libertarian momentum here, a sharp wind blowing across the political prairie, which is novel and unusual. It even links arms with the anti-vaxxer movement, the vociferous and sometimes violent campaign that takes distrust of science and politicians to its conspiratorial extreme. Its supporters do not wear masks. Some of them even believe the very existence of the Covid pandemic is fake news.

The North Shropshire by-election, a hitherto safe seat lost by a substantial margin, showed a massive volume of grass-roots Tory dismay with the Government. But heres the puzzle. Rural Tories are not by and large libertarians. They represent the land-and-property part of the Tory coalition, not the free-market entrepreneurial part. Their farmers and shop keepers do not warm to the idea of importing chlorinated chickens or hormone-fattened beef from America. They supported Brexit not because they wanted free markets and deregulation, but because they objected to to the idea of foreigners having any say in the government of Britain. At a push they are more for protection than for free trade.

What fuelled the anti-Tory votes in Shropshire were those other two sticks to beat the Government with, competence and integrity. They do not want the State demolished in the name of freedom. Many of them do very well out of it. They want good government. They want politicians who behave themselves properly.

So Boris Johnson has to fight a war on many fronts, which would challenge the skill of a genius or a saint, of which he is neither. Leaving aside for a moment the strange phenomenon of Tory Covid scepticism, there is an impression in the country that his lack of moral principle in his own life has set the tone for many in Government. I have noted in this space before that one of his biographers, Andrew Gimson, quoted a letter Johnson's housemaster at Eton had written to his parents, observations which seem as relevant today, I remarked two years ago, as the day they were made.

Boris sometimes seem affronted, he wrote, when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility... I think he honestly believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligations which bind everyone else. That still hits the nail. The ethical tone of an institution is set at the head. People learn to imitate their bosses. If they think that 10 Downing Street itself is pretty relaxed about following the rules, those in other parts of the Government and Tory party machine will feel the same. They feel they have been given tacit permission.

And so at the end of last year in various parts of the Whitehall and Westminster village, people assembled to flirt, eat cheese and other nibbles, drink wine and make a lot of noise, and perhaps enjoy a Christmas quiz together. OK as long as the rest of the public didnt know about it, they thought. The most devastating poster produced during the North Shropshire by-election campaign showed a group of well-known smiling Tory faces, with the unsubtle but totally deserved caption: Theyre laughing at you. Taking the conservative voters of rural England for mugs is about as toxic an insult as British politics has ever seen. These voters are not just disillusioned. They are hurt and angry.

Things can only get worse for Boris. The official science-based advice the government is receiving all points to further restrictions on personal liberty, and the sooner the better. If Johnson has lost control of his Party, he can only proceed to do what the scientists recommend if Labour backs him. That is a power shift of terminal proportions, for Labour can pull the rug out from under him whenever it likes.

Yet in this very confusing and paradoxical situation, one irony stands out. Johnson is, by temperament as the Eton school master pointed out, the very model of a modern libertarian. Some might even call him a libertine, a swordsman cavalier among cavaliers. He would be happier leading the rebels than resisting them. But he has hitched his star to the scientific advice, and has little choice but to follow it. If they say a surge in the prevalence of the Omicron Covid variant requires an end to family gatherings this holiday season another lockdown by any other name that is what he has to do. Whether his Tory opponents will ever forgive him is another question. So is the question of how long he can bear it.

Read this article:

The paradox of libertarian Boris following the 'star of science' - The Tablet

What will it take for voters to finally tire of rule by the Conservative Party? This is a question that has vexed many of us during the past decade. Things have frequently seemed hopeless. As recently as two years ago the press was awash with confident predictions of a further decade of Conservative rule.

Yet suddenly it feels as if the Conservative Party has run out of steam. Much as during the dog days of the Conservative governments of the 1990s, scandals are emerging thick and fast. There was the Owen Paterson corruption affair. The Christmas gatherings at Downing Street at the height of lockdown. The North Shropshire by-election. The only thing missing is a good sex scandal.

As a government, you must know youre in trouble when you become the butt of jokes on anodyne television entertainment shows such as Im a Celebrity. Or when youre booed by darts fans hardly a demographic that can be denounced by the rights culture warriors as the woke elite.

Boris Johnsons ideological flexibility has been one of his political strengths up to now. Indeed, the Prime Minister won a thumping victory in 2019 by winning over parts of the country that were long assumed to be Labour fiefdoms. Johnsons levelling-up agenda recognised that many people in the UK do not want the state off their backs, as Thatcherite backbenchers such as Steve Baker would have us believe. This was especially true in Britains former industrial areas, places that have for decades been benighted by deprivation and a gnawing lack of opportunity.

Yet many of Johnsons backbenchers are decidedly uncomfortable with the Tory partys new electoral base. Or at least, they recoil from the ideological adaptability required to sustain it. They may have climbed into power in 2019 on the back of a manifesto that promised to create a fair society and ensure that work will always pay; yet the ideological flavour of their politics is libertarian: a creed that has even less support in the UK than the far left. And now that Johnsons ability to win elections is losing its shine a slew of polls have given Labour its biggest lead over the Tories since the last hurrah of the New Labour era these backbenchers are growing restless.

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak is arguably the favourite to succeed Johnson, should the latter be deposed. The Chancellor has had an easy ride up to now because he possesses the superficial qualities that impress many members of Britains media class. He is Dishy Rishi, the countrys Dr Feelgood who artfully steered the economic ship through the darkest days of the pandemic. He is an adept television performer who knows how to drop a catchy soundbite. And if nothing else, his ascent to the top job would provide a slicker antidote to the bumbling performances offered by Johnson.

Most importantly of all, he is ideologically in tune with the Tory partys libertarian backbenchers. Feted by sections of the media for the economic largesse he bestowed on furloughed workers during lockdown, Sunak is in actuality an economic liberal who, when left to his own devices, has made the wrong call at almost every turn during the pandemic. Indeed, it was Sunaks 500m Eat Out to Help Out scheme that drove infections prior to last winters catastrophic second Covid wave. It was also Sunak who invited lockdown-sceptic scientists to persuade the Prime Minister to delay the decision to introduce another lockdown a move that cost thousands of lives. More recently, Sunak has been chafing at the cost of the UKs vaccine booster roll-out.

Sunak is an economic liberal who is being touted as the next Tory leader at a time when, all around the world, the flavour of economics that he represents is being hammered at the ballot box. In Britain, neoliberalisms pseudo-meritocratic promise was undone, in part, by the grotesque concentrations of wealth it generated. The last four decades have seen market dogma given a free hand in the UK but who today can argue that material success is a product of hard work, when owning a home depends as much on inheritance as hours worked?

In order to take Johnsons libertarian rivals seriously, one must also be wilfully blind to the manner in which the British people and what the Tory back-bench MP Joy Morrissey last week derided as a public health socialist state have comported themselves during the pandemic. The NHS vaccine roll-out, public support for protecting the elderly and vulnerable during lockdown, the widespread appreciation shown towards hard-pressed healthcare workers all encapsulate values that are starkly at odds with the corruption, the grift and the arrogant and repeated violation of the rules by a government which had imposed those same rules on everyone else (not to mention attempts by backbenchers to generate a phoney culture war over masks and vaccination).

Electoral success is built on compromise; yet the hubris it generates often prompts a retreat to ones ideological comfort zone. Which of course requires a degree of historical amnesia about how you won in the first place.

Historical amnesia is precisely what is required to view Sunak as the potential saviour of the Tory partys wobbling electoral prospects. The reek of Tory sleaze is once again in the air. But going back to the future to the failed doctrines that have produced so much political upheaval in recent years wont save the party.

[See also: Boris Johnson is finally out of luck]

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. From the archive A weekly dig into the New Statesmans archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Visit link:

Tory libertarians want to govern a Britain that does not exist - The New Statesman

The once fringe notion that political candidates would receive campaign donations via Bitcoin or other virtual cryptocurrencies is entering the mainstream.

Kissimmee Democratic U.S. Rep. Darren Soto, as much a centrist Democrat as might be found in Florida but one whose interest in blockchain technologies runs deep is welcoming crypto donations to his 2022 election campaign.

He joins a list that started with extreme candidates mostly from the right wing, such as Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer of Lake Worth, along with Libertarians, and some techies, such as Democrat Andrew Yang of New York and Matt West of Oregon.

Sotos interest rises from his position as a co-chair of the Congressional Blockchain Caucus, a bipartisan group promoting blockchain technologies that led to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Another co-chair of that caucus, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, also is accepting Bitcoin campaign donations.

Soto said the caucus values welcoming new types of currencies.

In addition, for Future Forum (another congressional caucus that Soto chairs), this is an interesting new financial asset for young people. In fact, 45% of those using cryptocurrencies are millennial, and 13% are Gen Z, Soto added.

Its also about being competitive in the future. As these young people are getting older and they are contributing more, we want to make sure were well positioned, he said of his re-election campaign in Floridas 9th Congressional District, covering Osceola County, southern Orange County and eastern Polk County.

More campaigns are trying it out, including Democratic U.S. Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Ritchie Torres of New York, Republican U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Its kind of gathering momentum in terms of the number of candidates. It used to sort of be this symbol of Libertarian ideology, or sort of just a fringe stance. But I think as the general public has become more knowledgeable and familiar with cryptocurrencies, so have campaigns, observed Austin Graham, legal counsel for Campaign Legal Center, a national, non-partisan elections watchdog.

That being said, Graham said, Its still not like every candidate for federal office is now taking Bitcoin.

The legality of cryptocurrency contributions to federal political campaigns is generally accepted. But it is not fully resolved by the Federal Election Commission, particularly regarding the details. There have been no Commission hearings or votes, just a single advisory opinion, answering a single question.

As the practice emerges, so do concerns raised by election watchdogs including Campaign Legal Center. They worry the whole point of cryptocurrencies anonymity at least undercuts one of the cornerstone values of campaign finance laws: transparency of who is donating. They also worry the fluctuating value of cryptocurrencies could complicate campaigns compliance with strict contribution limits.

In 2014, the FEC offered an advisory opinion to a political action committee saying the PAC could receive Bitcoin donations, provided it carefully documented who contributed, quickly converted the cryptocurrencies into dollars to set the value, and follow all other rules on donations.

That was it.

The FEC has not clarified yet whether that advisory opinion would also apply to candidates campaigns; whether donations to candidates should be limited to $100 like cash, or to $5,600 like checks; or whether the policy could be extended to other cryptocurrencies, which werent around much in 2014 but are flourishing now.

Starting with Paul and a couple of others in 2016, some federal candidates decided to read broad interpretations into the 2014 FEC advisory opinion, including that it could be extended to candidates fundraising, and that donations could be for the maximum $2,800 for a Primary and another $2,800 for a General Election.

In the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, crypto donation options remained a novelty, pursued by what some observers called the fringes of politics. Now, as many as 25 federal candidates and groups, including Soto, have opened their campaign coffers to cryptocurrencies, Business Insider reported last month.

Soto has received at least one Bitcoin donation, from an individual in California, in late July. That was for 0.070053 Bitcoins, which, when the campaign converted it and accepted it, was reported as worth $2,800. Last Friday, that much Bitcoin would have been worth $3,298 at the most recent exchange price, according to Coindesk.com.

Soto said it will take a while for crypto campaign donations to catch on, as a lot of people still have a lot to learn about cryptocurrencies.

Its a new technology and we have to combat a lot of ignorance. Overall we havent received a lot of cryptocurrency donations yet, though we hope to, Soto said. I would say its more just aiming for the future.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, techie Democrat Brian Fordeof California raised nearly half a million dollars of Bitcoin for his unsuccessful bid for a congressional seat in 2018.

Tracking Bitcoin contributions to campaigns is not easy. The FEC wants them listed as in-kind contributions. Information indicating that a transaction involved Bitcoin shows up only in footnotes in campaign finance reports.

The transparency question arises in the context of identifying the contributors to a political campaign. Bitcoin is designed to be anonymous, with accounts identified only by Bitcoin addresses and user pseudonyms. This differs from contributions through tools from banking institutions like checking accounts and credit cards, which are highly regulated and require that individuals of those accounts be identifiable, said Pete Quist, deputy research director for the nonpartisan watchdog group OpenSecrets.

Campaign treasurers are required to identify the donors, report the names, and confirm the contributions. But verifications of Bitcoin transactions cannot be confirmed through regulated financial institutions as with checks or credit cards, Quist noted.

That opens the prospect of ghost donors, a growing concern in an era of fears of foreign interference from countries such as Russia. The original source of the money may not be trackable.

Its not totally perfect, just because the underlying technology requires campaigns to take on an extra layer of trust, Graham said.

Soto defended the transparency, noting the donor still must be identified.

As it is, the FECs advisory opinion makes acceptance of cryptocurrencies complicated. Campaigns have to set up a separate system to gather donor information. They have to convert the currency to dollars. And if that results in too much money because of the current exchange rate, they have to refund the difference.

They need to comply in these transactions like any other contribution. The persons name, address, occupation needs to be on there. Its converted from cryptocurrency to dollars at the moment of the contribution, so theres no doubt about the value about that. So I think those are two important rules, Soto said. They have been approved by the FEC. I have obviously a compliance firm that helps run my campaign finance issues. There are other members, obviously, who have received cryptocurrency.

At the state level, many states are deferring to the FEC advisory, others are not taking stances, while still others are making their own rules. Tennessee passed a law legalizing Bitcoin donations, and laying out rules for them. California has prohibited Bitcoin donations in state and local campaigns.

I thought that was interesting because, you know, Silicon Valley and the image of California at the forefront of tech issues, Graham said. But their elections agency said, This is just too complicated, and there are too many opportunities for circumvention of transparency rules, and were just going to say its not allowed at this point.'

Post Views:429

Excerpt from:

Darren Soto paving the way for Bitcoin donations to campaigns - Florida Politics

To the editor: The time has come to abandon the term pandemic. We are numb to its utterance, and it fails to strike dread into our souls as once it did. I suggest another word: war. (Biden prepares military medics and hospital supplies as Omicron wave hits U.S., Dec. 20)

Our country is at war, and we are approaching 1 million killed. During times of war, the country mobilizes its resources, both human and material, to fight. This time, the foe is a microscopic particle that continues to endanger us all.

In the past, Americans have accepted the risk to their lives and well-being to fight the enemy. Young men and women put themselves in harms way to protect America. Unfortunately, times have changed.

A significant portion of our society sees no danger to the U.S. from this war. A significant portion of our society declines to take up a weapon (vaccination) out of the unfounded and unsubstantiated fear that it poses a serious risk to them, whereas 80 years ago their grandparents and great-grandparents did not hesitate to do so.

Its war, folks, and America needs you.

Dr. Bruce Littman, Porter Ranch

..

To the editor: Politicization of a pandemic is absurd, harmful and ugly. Cultural narcissism seems to have no bounds, especially in the guise of politics.

My view is simple and, at its base, libertarian: Exert all your freedoms to the limit, but not at the expense of harming others.

Anti-vaxxers have the right to be committed to principles that cant stand the light of reasonable dialogue, but not at the expense of harming others.

Anti-vaxxers become hosts for mutations of this scourge. Anti-vaxxers dilute herd immunity. Anti-vaxxers, when they need hospitalization, cost upward of $30,000 per day of treatment, much of which is covered by insurance or taxpayers.

Why would someone so principled as to hold an unpopular anti-vaxxer position be willing to have others pick up the tab for their care when they become sick? If you are so foolish, or somehow enlightened in ways most of us cannot understand, as to risk being an anti-vaxxer, you should agree to pay for your treatment should you become sick.

Richard A. Nyberg, Newport Beach

..

To the editor: So this is how the world ends not with a bang or a whimper, but a sneeze.

Don Powelson, Eagle Rock

Go here to read the rest:

In the war against Omicron, anti-vaxxers are deserters - Los Angeles Times