Category Archives: Libertarian

I was saddened to learn of the recent passing of Earl Ravenal, a one-time member of Cato's board of directors, long-time senior fellow and distinguished senior fellow, and an important voice in the development of the case against global interventionism in the 1970s and 1980s.

He taught international affairs for many years at Georgetown University, and was the author of several books and monographs, as well as countless papers and articles, including Never Again: Learning From America's Foreign Policy Failures (Temple University Press, 1978), and this gem, from way back in the Cato archives, "Reagan's 1983 Defense Budget: An Analysis and an Alternative" (Policy Analysis no. 10).

In his sweeping history of the libertarian movement, Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty describes Ravenal as "a foreign policy intellectual of real-world heft." He was active in Libertarian Party politics, and was responsible for writing LP presidential candidate Ed Clark's campaign statement on foreign and defense policies in 1980.

Ted Galen Carpenter, who preceded me as Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, recalls "Earl was nearly unique in the 1970s and 1980s in being regarded as a serious scholar by much of the foreign policy establishment, despite his unorthodox views. That status made him a true trailblazer for those of us who reinforced the case for realism and restraint. Without his pioneering work, our task would have been far more difficult."

Another Cato colleague remembers Earl's dogged effort to assess the share of the Pentagon's budget that was geared toward defending Europe and Asia during the waning days of the Cold War. This was a daunting task, given that such spending is fungible, and the things that it buys mobile. A ship in Norfolk can be deployed to the Mediterranean, but also to the Persian Gulf, or even the Pacific Ocean (it just takes longer). Planes fly. Even troops can be relocated -- though their bases less easily. In the face of such complexity, most people simply shrugged their shoulders: "Who knows?" Ravenal improved public understanding of America's military posture in the early 1980s by forcing a discussion of these costs into the debate.

As a young Cato fan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I encountered many of Ravenal's books and articles on foreign and defense policy. The most influential was arguably Designing Defense for a New World Order, published in 1991. I (somehow) managed to locate it on my bookshelf, and discovered countless highlighted passages, and earnest comments and questions in the margins.

Earl's family reports that he passed away on August 31, 2019. He was 88 years old. I extend to them my sincere condolences.

A memorial service will be held in his honor next month at the Cosmos Club on Sunday, October 27 at 2 pm. The public is welcome.

Link:

RIP Earl Ravenal (1931-2019) | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

Tulsi Gabbard is, I think its safe to say, the pragmatic libertarians favorite in the Democratic primary.

Sure, shes not a libertarian. Thats granted. There are plenty of policy positions she holds that simply dont overlap with the libertarian position at all. It would take more than my two hands to recite them. Some of these are understandably deal-killers depending on ones focus, and many dont even care much about Democratic primaries.

But shes got a laser sharp focus on the issues of overlap as her major concerns: A pro-peace, anti-war foreign policy thats at least more pure than her competitors and undeniably smart and informed by both intelligence and experience. A support for civil liberties and transparency from a place of actual sincerity. A willingness to call out wrong as she sees it regardless of where it originates.

And, lets face it look at her competition. Its one thing to say shes not libertarian enough for libertarian support in a general election. Im sure that even if Marianne blessed her with a miracle and she somehow became the nominee, the eventual libertarian candidate would have her beat on libertarian cred. But who else is running in the race shes currently in that could hold a candle to her?

Just having her in the debates is an easy way to show how awful her competition is on issues that Democrats are supposed to be good on because shes actually willing to call them out. We all want to see her torch other Democrats on that stage the way she decimated Harris in the last debate she participated in. And it was just yesterday on Twitter that she wrote Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabias bitch is not America First. which just warms my heart.

This weekend, Tulsi held a townhall in Ankeny, IA where she took questions from the audience. One of those audience members is a man named Seth (God bless you, Seth). He asked her about the good old libertarian bumper sticker slogan of taxation is theft.

Her response deserves more context than the first sentence that can fit on a meme, and is as follows

Seth: Hello. My name is Seth.

Tulsi: Hi Seth.

Seth: Im one of the libertarians in this coalition that youre building. And I want to say that youve already sold me on your thing. Im voting for you, Tulsi 2020. Were going.

Tulsi: Thank you.

Seth: But as a libertarian in this election space, Im curious as to what each candidate thinks. I wonder do you have any ethical problems with taxation? Whether or not its theft or whether or not its permissible even if it is theft, or just where are your thoughts on this subject?

Tulsi: Taxation is theft when our taxes are being used toward things that do not serve our interests.

Yall work hard every day. When you pay those taxes, you should have faith and trust that they will be used for things like making sure youve got safe roads to drive on. To make sure that your kids are getting a good education in these public schools. To make sure that your firefighters have what they need in order to make sure your house doesnt burn down if something happens. There are basic needs that we have in this country, and our taxes are meant to serve those needs.

Not to fund needless layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. Certainly not to fund these wasteful wars and nuclear weapons that are making us in the world less safe. This gets to the heart of what Im talking about here.

It is about fiscal responsibility. And it is about accountability.

And making sure that our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are redirected away from this kind of waste and abuse and used to serve the interests of our people.

Obviously, there are issues that libertarians could find with this. Taxation is theft when? Public schools? How would she serve the interests of our people, and is there a more effective solution than government? Is government really serving our interests at all when it acts outside of a role that protects life, liberty, and property and what does that entail compared to her plans? That kind of thing that fills the headspace of all real libertarians rent-free. These are, of course, real questions and concerns. But

She acknowledged a negative moral component to excessive taxation and implied that its nature was involuntary. She may have agreed taxation was theft only when the ROI was in the red, but in some ways thats in line with classical liberal thought even if her cost/benefit analysis on when government is serving our interests enough to justify some degree of theft is in reality worlds apart.

When painting a picture of the kinds of things worth the necessity of taxation, she described muh roads, schools, and firefighters rather than expansive welfare states in mixed economies (even if she does advocate for some of those same policies elsewhere). She spoke against bureaucracy and war, and for fiscal responsibility and government accountability. Its hard to imagine some of her competition even using words like fiscal responsibility for lip service without bursting into flames.

As a libertarian who believes taxation is theft, and a classical liberal who believes that there are things worse than theft, maybe Im too sympathetic when giving credit for what I view as a great answer (politically speaking) that threads the needle she needs to thread for her coalition brilliantly. Maybe Im not as critical as I would be if she were running in another party but isnt that the point?

Id ask the following, though: Is there another Democrat running who could have possibly given a better answer from a liberty point of view?

Her answer can be viewed here, roughly 35 minutes in.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore

Excerpt from:

Tulsi Gabbard: Taxation Is Theft (When...) - The Libertarian Republic

New Westminster-Burnabys Libertarian Party candidate says there are no existential questions for his party with a competing libertarian-leaning brand with broad coverage in the upcoming election.

Neeraj Murarka, New West's B.C. Libertarian Party candidate 2017 and B.C. director of the federal Libertarian Party, is replacing Rex Brocki in New West-Burnaby, with Brocki set to run up against NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh in Burnaby South under the Libertarian banner.

Brocki tallied 2.6 per cent of the vote in New West-Burnaby in 2015, which Murarka admitted will be a challenge to meet, saying Brocki is more experienced in electoral politics.

His own name recognition wont be the only challenge to the Libertarians in New West-Burnaby, though.

The Peoples Party of Canada, run by former Conservative Party leadership contender Maxime Bernier, has received significant press coverage in the year since its September 2018 formation. Thats particularly true, given the PPC hasnt even breached the five per cent mark in either CBCs poll tracker or fellow poll aggregate 338Canada since the partys creation.

That name recognition could steal what little sway the Libertarians wield. But although the Libertarians considered a merger with the PPC last year, Murarka said the party doesnt have any question about where it stands with a competing libertarian brand in the mix.

Murarka called the Peoples Party a more practical rendition of his own party. Where the PPC could conceivably snag a seat or two in October, Murarka sees his party as the more principled libertarian brand.

Theyre basically doing whatever is necessary to get into office, Murarka said.

While he said the PPC concedes parts of a libertarian platform to get into office, Murarka says the party could push libertarian ideals into the mainstream.

These are necessary evils in order to make change. If they manage to disrupt things, just manage to get a seat, I would be, honestly, very happy, Murarka said.

I dont see them as the enemy; Im not going to vote for them because Im running, myself. But I think that both of our parties are kind of on the same level.

Murarka couldnt name any particular PPC policies he saw as a concession from a libertarian platform, but said he does feel some sour grapes about Bernier skipping the Libertarian Party to form his own.

Murarka said his main issue this election is getting more voter involvement in the choices of government more referendums and more decentralized control of Parliament.

I want the voters to get to make those decisions, whether it relates to taxes, foreign policy, foreign intervention, military, spending, welfare all those things.

Read the rest here:

New West Libertarian sees Bernier's People's Party as allies, not a threat - The Record (New Westminster)

Washington is awash with proposals for a new regulatory agency centered on Silicon Valley. Often lost in that important conversation is the fact that the executive branch already has some positions with a direct focus on the technology sector, though they are limited in scope and scattered across the alphabet-soup of agencies. Perhaps no tech-focused bureaucrat has the presidents ear quite like the Chief Technology Officer. The CTO is the White Houses top advisor on anything to do with technology and innovation, tasked with explaining the latest developments and guiding the thinking of the most powerful politician on earth.

It should concern onlookers, then, that the current CTO, Michael Kratsios, got his job thanks to his long friendship with one of the most dangerous plutocrats of our age: Peter Thiel, founder of the Big Brother-esque software company Palantir and Trumps most ardent supporter in Silicon Valley. Thiels explosive political beliefs, and his capacity to profit from White House policies set by his cronies, are why the Revolving Door Project has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all email correspondence between Kratsios and any employees of Thiels technology and venture capital firms.

Its worth taking a moment to introduce you to Peter Thiel. Hes the unofficial leader of the Paypal Mafia, a gang of Silicon Valley colleagues who got filthy rich by selling Paypal to eBay, then founded their own companies drawing on each other as major investors. They are true kingmakers in the Valley, perhaps the best living proof that the tech sector is not the platonic ideal of bootstrap capitalism which fellow libertarian Charles Koch makes it out to be.

But simply describing Thiel as a businessman and libertarian is woefully insufficient. He ultimately believes only in himself and his entitlement to power, knowledge, wealth, and fame. He is so certain of his place on top of the food chain that he believes anything which hampers him including the concept of democracy must be crushed.

Shortly after Barack Obamas first inauguration, Thiel wrote for the libertarian Cato Institute I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. He explained Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians have rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron.

Given a self-imposed choice between the two, Thiel clearly chooses capitalism. After explaining that hes chosen to escape politics in all its forms including the unthinking demos that guides so-called social democracy Thiel writes that hes dedicating his efforts to building internet companies, exploring outer space, and settling the oceans in hopes of building his new libertarian utopia. The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism, Thiel writes.

A 2016 profile found that there is no evidence that [Thiel] has changed his mind about the views expressed in his infamous blog post. But he has taken concrete steps to accomplish the goals laid out in it. Through a network of venture capital funds, Thiel invested in some of the most notable internet companies of our time including the gig-economy apps Uber and Postmates, which are premised on radical libertarian visions of the workforce. (Uber is now openly flaunting Californias efforts to bring the companys labor practices in line. Ayn Rand has friends in California.)

Thats not even mentioning that his old college roommate alleges Thiel used to call apartheid South Africa a sound economic system. Or that hes funding Urbit, an app developed by the slavery and white-nationalism apologist Mencius Moldbug. Or that he wrote a book arguing that multiculturalism dumbed down American institutions, and in which he called date rape belated regret. He denies the apartheid comments, and has apologized for some of the statements in the book. But he also gave $1.25 million to the Trump campaign a week after the Access Hollywood tape came out. As any anti-intelligentsia crusader should tell you, actions speak louder than words.

And, of course, he funded the lawsuit which brought down Gawker, after considering bribery, theft, bugging, and email hacking, among other potential crimes, years earlier. Gawkers Silicon Valley-focused blog Valleywag revealed that Thiel is gay in 2007, an understandable reason to hold a grudge. But the Gawker case set a dangerous precedent for reporting rights on the internet, which is quite convenient to Thiels anti-democratic worldview. As Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker, Hulk Hogan conceded that Gawkers story about him was true, yet he still won a vast judgment and, not incidentally, drove the Web site out of business. The prospect of liability, perhaps existential in nature, for true stories presents a chilling risk for those who rely on the First Amendment.

Thiel does not believe in democracy. He does not believe in equality. He does not believe in a free press. His voice, by default, should be irrelevant to the American democratic process (beyond, of course, his right to cast a vote like you or I).

So it is doubly disturbing that Thiel played a key role in staffing the current White House. And despite the famously high turnover rate in TrumpWorld, several of his cronies are still speckled throughout the executive branch.

Kevin Harrington, a former investor with Thiel Macro, is a senior staffer on Trumps National Security Council. Harrington played a major role in staffing the initial Trump NSC, and has stayed on staff, despite having no national security credentials. If the NSC were not exempt from FOIA requests, wed be probing Harringtons contacts too. Similarly, Trae Stephens, co-founder of the Thiel-backed Anduril Industries and a partner with Thiel in the investment firm Founders Fund, was on the Trump national security transition team. And Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had plenty of Palantir alumni in his orbit, including Justin Mikolay, who went straight into lobbying for Palantir after leaving the Defense department.

But Kratsios, the Chief Technology Officer, is arguably the most prominent Thiel-ite in the White House. The Senate only confirmed Kratsios (unanimously) as the CTO in August, but he has filled the role of Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Deputy Assistant to the President since early 2017. Thus, hes performed his current jobs advisory functions since the start of the Trump era.

Kratsios came to Washington by way of two Thiel financial ventures: Clarium Capital Management and Thiel Capital. Clarium is a hedge fund which made some savvy bets on energy markets in the early 2000s, but took a major tumble in 2010. Kratsios was the firms Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer from 2010 to 2015, according to his LinkedIn bio. Apparently, Kratsios impressed Thiel enough to bring him on at Thiel Capital as Principal and Chief of Staff.

Thiel Capital is more of an enigma. Its website is just a logo. The only public information about it comes, again, from a LinkedIn page, declaring that it provides strategic and operational support for Peters many investment initiatives and entrepreneurial endeavors. (LinkedIn, by the way, was created by a Paypal mafioso.) Another sign that Thiel Capital isnt looking for the spotlight is the name: Thiels better-known venture capital funds are all named after Lord of the Rings references, such as the godlike Valar, or magical metal Mithril. Thiel Capital appears, then, to be a means of overseeing and managing the other, flashier pieces of the Thiel empire.

Trusting Kratsios with such a crucial role speaks to Thiels high regard for him, as does the nomination to be Trumps Deputy US Chief Technology Officer. As a venture capitalist, Kratsios has no direct background in research, development, or science. His expertise, rather, is spotting which technologies are about to be commercially viable and are likely to make a killing for those who can get in on the ground. Now as Americas CTO, his priority is still to pump public money and private investment opportunities into the buzziest Silicon Valley innovation of our time: artificial intelligence.

At a panel last week hosted by the Center for Data Innovation, a subsidiary of the infamously pro-corporate Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Kratsios bragged about a Trump proposal for nearly $1 billion in non-defense AI spending. This years publicly-known defense department spending on AI totals almost $1 billion more, according to Kratsios. Thats a marked contrast with the FY2016 budget, which set aside about $1 billion in total for all AI spending (defense and non-defense).

That spending is just one part of the American AI Initiative, Kratsios signature project. Other facets include opening more federal data sets up to private actors, deregulation, and White House-approved technical standards in the AI space. Kratsios preempts any critics of the initiative with the common, flawed fatalism of arguing that the US needs to beat China in the sphere. The American AI Initiative calls for a strong action plan to protect our advantage from adversarial nations for the security of our economy and our nation, he wrote in a Wired op-ed.

Sam Biddle, a former Valleywag editor, deconstructed the many flaws in the race with China narrative here. But its worth noting that Peter Thiel stands to profit from federal funds pouring into the AI space. Through his venture capital funds, hes invested in AI companies all over the globe. He helped develop a non-profit AI group with some long-time investing pals. His own company, Palantir, has an AI division. So does the military technology developer Anduril, in which Thiel has invested.

Both Anduril and Palantir already have major military contracts, and have stood firm in the face of activist pushback. Palantir CEO Alex Karp criticized Google employees hesitance to develop AI for the Pentagons Project Maven as part of a confused PR junket in the last few weeks, which is a follow-up to Thiels own round of Google-bashing. While Palantirs bread-and-butter is crunching big data, rather than teaching machines to think for themselves, Palantir furthers its future business opportunities by presenting an image of a patriotic, pro-military technology companyespecially when it has connections with the White Houses main technology advisor. This just might be enough to edge out Google and Amazon for some of the billions in defense money that is on the line, despite Jeff Bezos own corrupt connections in the Pentagon.

Given Thiels massive potential to personally profit from the American AI Initiative, and the dangers of his ideology influencing White House decision-making, the Revolving Door Project is requesting transcripts of all email correspondence between Kratsios and anyone with an email address associated with Palantir, Anduril, or any of Thiels venture capital companies or philanthropic foundations. We need to see whether Kratsios communications, if any, with the Thiel network show unusual or undue coordination, and if Thiels firms may have profited from it.

Given his intermittent taste for the limelight, its hard to call Peter Thiel under-scrutinized. But his connections to dangerous technology and belief in a dangerous ideology mean that he ought to be more of a household name. Investigating his point man in the White House is just one small part of the goal of greater scrutiny.

This article originally appeared on CEPR.

Read the original post:

Revolving Door Project Probes Thiel's White House Connection - CounterPunch

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. -- Around 100 people gathered at the Indiana Landmarks Center on Central Avenue Thursday to hear from the three candidates vying for the mayor's seat. That included Incumbent and Democrat Joe Hogsett, Republican Jim Merritt and Libertarian Douglas McNaughton.

We are just 47 days away from the election. This forum gave the candidates 15 minutes to address the audience and about an hour for them to answer questions.

People asked about everything from potholes and public safety to electronic billboards and whether the candidates agreed with the county's ordinance to ban them. Each of them gave separate answers for why they believe they are the person for the job.

After drawing names, McNaughton approached the microphone first. He stated his job as an automation engineer gives him the opportunity to travel the world.

He said he's "seen the city at its best, [he's] seen it at its not so best." In his 30 years living in Indianapolis, he said as a Libertarian and a "general observer around the world" he sees room for improvement.

"I see things that can be improved over what they are currently,and that's why I'm running for mayor," McNaughton said. "I think I could do a great job and introduce some new ideas, some out-of-the box thinking, maybe some approaches that other people haven't considered because it's not an approach they would normally see."

Then, Hogsett walked the audience through where the city and county leadership were when they took office on January 1, 2016. He said both the Democratic and Republican caucuses put aside their differences to work together to address the problems they faced in the areas of "understaffed and poorly equipped public safety agencies, road infrastructure straining under decades of underfunding and a budget deficit that threatened to destroy the city's credit rating, and bankrupt whole departments of our city by 2019."

He gave credit to the people serving alongside of him saying they "never wavered" and told the audience under his leadership, city leaders offered a balanced budget for three consecutive years, along with a $400 million infrastructure plan.

Lastly, Merritt approached the microphone and quickly began talking about public safety. He said if he is elected mayor, there will be a public safety director who is an expert in fire, ambulance and law enforcement.

"Somebody that will be at my side 24/7 and I find thatto be very, very important," Merritt said. "Right now, our heroes in the law enforcement IMPD, 80% of their day is paperwork and 20% is law enforcement. We all know we need better recruiting, we need better equipment and we need better everything at IMPD."

Merritt said he will be available to any police officerat any time. He said he wants "the chief of police who I'll name to be out in the community working and being current."

After the candidates finished their statements, they took several questions from audience members. They wanted to know about electric scooters, gentrification, how the candidates planned on dealing with potholes and even how the three men would separately help all neighborhoods regardless of location.

FOX59 is televising the October 28 mayoral debate. You can find those details out here.

Original post:

Voters hear from Indys mayoral candidates on topics including public safety, pot holes - FOX 59 Indianapolis

The recent voting lecture from Lori Sturdevant and Tom Horner (Minnesotans, dont be the spoilers, Sept. 15) could have used a host of other recycled headlines from the duopoly endorsement mantra headlines such as Dont waste your vote on a third party or They can never win or Lets just change existing parties from within.

It gave me a few flashbacks as I fought through the contradictions and arrogance of the piece.

The background was fair and true, explaining Minnesotas historical embrace of multiparty politics, how Minnesotans chafe at the binary nature of politics, and how, in 2016, we saw four times more third-party presidential votes than in 2012.

But then enters the Ragnarok advocate for third-party destruction, Tom Horner. It was correctly pointed out that he was the last great statewide Independence Party candidate, who back in 2010 grabbed a spectacular 12% running for governor. This was the last time the IP surpassed the major party line in Minnesota.

Horner has since spent his time persuading voters to support either side of the duopoly instead. This contradicts the assertion that he cannot be accused of blind loyalty to the two-party system. Actually, yes he can.

Exhibit A: On Sept. 29, 2014, Horners commentary in the Star Tribune titled Johnsons leadership will benefit state asked everyone to not vote for the party he had just championed, but instead vote for Republican Jeff Johnson in order to oust Democrat Mark Dayton. I issued a counterpoint on Oct. 6, The Libertarian Party alone now offers true alternative, expressing disappointment in that advice.

Exhibit B are Horners comments in the Sept. 15 piece, where he again suggests voters stay in the two-party system no matter what, but now on the other side. Voters have a duty it seems to vote for a Democrat (fill in the blank) to stop the Republican (the tweeter in chief).

Dont be led into third-party temptation in 2020, Horner is said to advise. Anything that even potentially detracts from [defeating President Donald Trump] is not a smart vote, he declares.

Its hard to see how this can pass for anything besides blind loyalty to the two-party system. Toss in an insult to intelligence for good measure.

It is further claimed that in Minnesota, third parties have it easy with simple ballot access and public campaign funds. This is just flat untrue. Minnesota has prehistoric structural limitations on political parties who attract support in the 1%-5% range to try to keep them at bay. An occasional breakout happens with a famous name like Ventura or any issue like marijuana, but the structure tamps them right back down. In fact the easy access laws referred to are so prohibitive and unequal that the Libertarian Party has filed a lawsuit to challenge them.

Changing the two-party system from within has obviously not worked, and it wont this time either despite advice to vote for the lesser of two evils. Guess what, that means evil still wins. And when those become the only choices, many stay home, which is exactly what they want.

Dont give in to that. We need more choices and more voices. Go out and vote for the one you believe in. Its your vote and your conscience. Its never a waste unless you dont use it. Dont listen to people who say youll only be spoiling something that is already rotten.

GO OUT AND VOTE HOW YOU WANT TO.

Chris Holbrook is chair of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota.

Excerpt from:

OPINION EXCHANGE | Counterpoint: Wrong time for third parties? No, vote for who you believe in - Star Tribune

The Trump campaign has an unprecedented war chest to spend on watch-list states like New Mexico. | Patrick Semansky/AP File Photo

2020 elections

The strategy centers on wooing Hispanics in the state, which has voted for a Republican presidential candidate only once since 1992.

By GABBY ORR

09/16/2019 05:03 AM EDT

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. John McCain lost New Mexico by nearly 15 percentage points in 2008. Four years later, Mitt Romney pulled two top staffers from the ground here with weeks to go before Election Day admitting defeat even before Barack Obama trounced him by 51 points in the Santa Fe area.

The Land of Enchantment has voted for a Republican presidential candidate only once since 1992. With a considerable nonwhite voter population and all-Democratic congressional delegation, its not exactly fertile ground for a surprise GOP victory.

Story Continued Below

But then, President Donald Trump has seldom shied away from a long-shot challenge.

Despite the Democratic Partys statewide success here last November winning two congressional seats up for grabs, defending a third and defeating Republican nominee Steve Pearce for the governors mansion Trump and his aides are betting they can flip New Mexico next fall and expand his electoral playing field.

Their efforts begin Monday night with a campaign rally in Rio Rancho, which sits in a county Trump lost by 1,800 votes in 2016. The Hispanic-heavy city is four hours north of El Paso, Texas, where the president held a reelection rally in August that prompted campaign manager Brad Parscale to add New Mexico to his watch list a list of nontraditional battleground states, including Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia, that the Trump campaign has its sights set on.

Ive continued to say the presidents policies are a win for Latino voters across America and one of the first symbols of this was the El Paso rally, Parscale told reporters on a call last week. We saw in the data thousands of voters who did not vote for the president in 2016 show up to a rally, come listen to the president and register [to vote].

As we started doing polling there, we saw a dramatic increase from 2016 and I went over this with the president and he said, Lets go straight into Albuquerque, Parscale recalled.

poster="https://static.politico.com/eb/36/868c6ab4463cb2341d00657e5d89/immigration-eugene.png" true

Political forecasters and local officials remain puzzled by claims that Trump with his restrictionist immigration policies, white-identity politics and below-average approval ratings can woo enough voters to turn New Mexico in his favor.

What weve seen of the presidents immigration policy has been cruel and inhumane. I think Democrats and New Mexicans, in general, are much more interested in making sure our communities feel welcome and safe, said Miranda van Dijk, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Party of New Mexico, which is counterprogramming Trumps rally with an event focused on unity and diversity.

Hes a batshit racist, adds Chris Luchini, a New Mexico native who sits atop the states Libertarian Party. Im very skeptical that New Mexico is up for grabs with him.

The Libertarians of New Mexico earned major-party status in 2016 after Gary Johnson the states former Republican governor, who became the Libertarian presidential nominee in the past two elections carried nearly 10 percent of the statewide vote. Luchini contends that the party has become somewhat of a refuge for disaffected Democrats who are too conservative for the progressive politics of their state Legislature, but too appalled by Trump to reregister as Republicans.

Traditionally, the normal thing that most political operatives have believed is that people who vote Libertarian are disaffected Republicans. That is no longer true in New Mexico, he explained.

Luchini said he often calls voters when they reregister as Libertarian to ask what prompted the change, and what I get on the phone calls a lot are traditional conservative Democrats who can no longer stomach being called a Democrat, but are self-selected not to be Trump voters.

The trend he describes is consistent with the Trump campaigns attraction to New Mexico, though questions remain about whether the current political climate here is truly advantageous for the president. His net approval rating in the state has decreased by 34 percentage points since he took office, and recent matchup polls in bordering red Texas have shown him losing to the top three candidates in the Democratic presidential field.

Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

But Trump campaign officials say the numbers theyre looking at paint a different picture of a state in which Hispanic Catholics and rural voters feel abandoned by progressive lawmakers who have pushed to codify reproductive rights, increase taxes and mandate the creation of gender-neutral restrooms in commercial buildings. Furthermore, they maintain that the presidents actions on immigration are attractive to a particular subset of Hispanic voters who support border security or have family members who entered the U.S. legally.

That is, only if Trump can ditch the harsh rhetoric he typically employs when discussing his immigration policies and preferences, says Pearce, the failed gubernatorial candidate, who has spoken to the campaign about the presidents language in his current capacity as chairman of New Mexicos Republican Party.

This is a lot about tone, and youve got to watch that, Pearce said. You dont have to be cautious about saying you want to secure the border. You just have to say it with firmness and without anger.

Republicans in New Mexico are also eyeing retiring Democrat Tom Udalls Senate seat as a means to boost voter turnout and help the president in 2020. Two Republican candidates have already declared in addition to 10 different people who are interested in running, whom Pearce says he has spoken to though neither is viewed as particularly competitive in what is seen as a relatively safe seat for Democrats.

Still, van Dijk says Democratic activists and state party officials are not taking anything for granted for this cycle and will focus heavily on defending Udalls seat and appealing to voters from every corner of the state.

Were really excited about supporting our eventual nominee for Senate and lucky to have an incredible county party structure, she said. We are in every part of our state and were making sure our initiatives are focused in every part of our state.

By Parscales telling, Trump who hasnt visited New Mexico since October 2016 has long been eager to return. Campaign officials believe that Johnson attracted tens of thousands of would-be Trump voters during the presidents first White House bid. And if they can just win over those voters this cycle, it will bring Trump closer to having five more electoral votes in his pocket.

It wasnt until mid-August, though, that Trump himself was convinced of the idea. The president has spent months polling his inner circle about the political landscape in New Mexico, according to two people familiar with those conversations, one of whom recalled his asking an aide whether coming here would be a waste of time.

I started talking to them saying they shouldnt write off New Mexico in January. They didnt believe that in the least, Pearce said.

He continued: Eventually Brad began to watch it, and three to four months ago he said he wanted to come into New Mexico and do a little something with the party, and that morphed into Don Jr. coming with him, and then the president started wanting to come about the time of his New Hampshire rally in August.

With an unprecedented war chest, the Trump campaign has ample cash to spend on watch-list states like New Mexico, where at least a half-dozen staffers are expected to be stationed before the end of the year. If Mondays rally meets expectations, the president could turn the state into a regular stop on the campaign trail as 2020 draws near particularly if his prospects begin to dim in key battleground states.

He starts off with 164 electoral votes automatically, a Republican official familiar with Trumps strategy recently told POLITICO. What I would tell you is, I feel like hes going to win Texas, but I dont know that we have opportunities in Colorado, Virginia [or] New Mexico.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Originally posted here:

Trump launches ambitious play to turn New Mexico red - POLITICO

Texas politics has never been very accommodating to third parties and their efforts to win votes. The Libertarian party has been perceived as siphoning votes away from the Republican party, and the Green Party from the Democrats.

But in the last legislative session, with the passage of HB 2504, critics charge the bill was passed and signed into law with the intent to make it easier for the Green Party to get on the ballot and make it more difficult for the Libertarians to get on the ballot.

HB 2504 from state Rep.Drew Springer (R-Muenster) requires small party candidates to either pay filing fees or secure a certain number of signatures to get on a November ballot. It also changes the threshold for guaranteeing a party a place on the ballot.

It all comes down to the upcoming election cycle and concerns of a follow-up Blue Wave maybe some green on the ballot can save some red seats.

Nevertheless Green Party officials are happy they have an opening to appeal to Texas voters and they dispute the thinking that they are spoilers.

Alfred Molson is the male co-chair of the Green Party of Texas.

The Long View of Racial Segregation

In East Texas the Longview Independent School District is moving forward now that a federal court has released it from decades-long supervision connected to its history of racial segregation.

Some argue that true integration never came to Longview ISD and there remain barriers for black and Hispanic students while White students have access to better opportunities for academic success.

The district has poured millions of dollars into new programs to correct that, but if it continues their policy to student equity now depends solely which way the school board leads.

Aliyya Swaby is an education reporter for the Texas Tribune and is part of a team producing Dis-Integration a podcast with the Tribune and the NPR program 1A, which focuses on Longview ISD and its efforts to topple barriers for students of color.

Dominicana

Angie Cruz is a New York born novelist, editor, and associate professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh. Her latest novel isDominicanaand was inspired by her mothers story as an immigrant in the United States in the 1960s.

The protagonist, Ana, is a teen bride married off to a man twice her age who takes her from her small village in the Dominican Republic to New York City. She is forcibly cast into unfamiliar spaces made all the more inhospitable by his treacheries. Ana comes of age in these lonely situations using her strength and intelligence to find her own way as an immigrant in America.

Texas Public Radio contributorYvetteBenavides spoke to Cruz about the novel.

Continued here:

Texas Matters: Green Party Blues, Segregation In Longview And 'Dominicana' - Texas Public Radio

Libertarian: The Next Big School-Choice Case

The Supreme Court is now preparing to weigh the constitutional merits of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, reports Damon Root at Reason. It turns on a school-choice program that creates a tax credit for individuals and businesses that donate to private, nonprofit scholarship organizations but in 2018 Montanas Supreme Court declared religious schools entirely off-limits to the program, citing the state Constitutions prohibition on giving money to religious organizations. Yet past US Supreme Court rulings let school-choice programs include religious schools, and the federal Constitution cant mean two different things in two different states. So, if the Supreme Court follows its own precedents, the case looks to be a winner for the school choice side.

Iconoclast: Trudeau the Hypocrite

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the most woke, virtue-signalling and PC-crazed leader in the history of Mankind, has tumbled off into a pit of shameless hypocrisy, Piers Morgan guffaws at the Daily Mail. Earlier this week, Trudeau, who has been keen to paint himself as the male Mother Teresa, was found to have worn black- and brownface on multiple occasions. Trudeaus apology is predictably self-flagellating, but he refuses to resign, even though hed have demanded another politicians head on a plate for similar shenanigans. I detest the modern cancel culture, Morgan notes, but Trudeaus barefaced hypocrisy that should render his position untenable. Live by the woke cancel culture, die by it.

Conservative: Kavanaugh & the Legitimacy Crisis

It is impossible to separate the latest attack on Justice Brett Kavanaugh from the political strategy of the Democratic Party, Matthew Continetti opines at the Washington Free Beacon. On Sept. 16, two days after The New York Times ran a discredited attack on Kavanaugh, Axios AM described Democratic plans to portray the justice, President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as three villains. For the Democrats and their allies in the media, the goal is neither objectivity nor factuality. It is de-legitimization, using journalists as instruments of a political agenda. Kavanaugh is a pawn in this crisis of legitimacy that is coursing through our institutions. This ruthless assault on the nations institutions is fresh proof that the left is willing to break rules, and lives, to achieve social transformation.

2020 watch: Trump Will Trounce Biden or Warren

President Trump will have little difficulty beating current Democratic frontrunners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, predicts David Catron at the American Spectator. Polls that now show Trump losing to either Democrat are as useless as the 2016 polls that incorrectly showed Hillary Clinton beating Trump. Its not clear how long Biden will hold on to his position as frontrunner, and his gaffes arent helping him. Warrens radical agenda, endorsing Medicare for All and a wealth tax, hasnt helped her connect with non-white voters. Meanwhile, Trump has the largest campaign war chest in US political history, and he is not hesitant to carpet-bomb his opponent when the time comes. Biden and Warren, on the other hand, are out of touch with voters.

Space race: Its Earth First for Sanders

For people who care about NASAs plans to return to the moon, a Bernie Sanders presidency would be a gut punch, warns Mark R. Whittington at The Hill. Under a Sanders presidency, no space exploration will take place, the candidate preferring to invest massive amounts of money in his plans to address climate change by remaking the American economy and to nationalize the American health-care system. Because President Trump warmly supports investments in space, even just a Sanders nomination for president would make space exploration a partisan issue, when NASAs leaders have worked hard to make it a bipartisan affair united by the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Democrats, take note, urges Whittington: Space is too important to be part of a political war.

Compiled by Karl Salzmann

More here:

The next big school-choice case and other commentary - New York Post

It might not be the support hes looking for, but Bill Weld, the former Republican Massachusetts governor, said Thursday he backs Rep. Joe Kennedy in his bid to oust Sen. Edward J. Markey in the Democratic primary.

The race between Kennedy and Markey is shaping up to be among the most watched intramural contests this election cycle, pitting the scion of one of the countrys more famous political families against Markey, a longtime member of Congress.

Kennedy is expected to formally launch his Senate bid on Saturday in Boston.

Im for Kennedy, said Weld, who held a wide-ranging conversation with Washington Post reporters. Ive known him since the day he was born.

He doesnt want my endorsement, Weld added quickly.

He also praised Markey.

Ive known Ed for a long time and hes a hero in a lot of areas, Weld said, listing Telecom and the environment as two key issues where he said Markey has provided leadership.

Emily Kaufman, a spokeswoman for Kennedy, said, Joe appreciates the kind words. Hell be making a a campaign announcement this Saturday and looks forward to speaking with folks then.

Weld, who served as governor from 1991 to 1997, waged an unsuccessful bid for Senate in 1996, trying to unseat then-Sen. John Kerry. Weld is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination, taking on President Donald Trump. His strategy involves trying to win New Hampshire, where hes been heavily campaigning. There have been few public polls of the Republican primary in New Hampshire, but an April survey showed Trump more than 60 percentage points ahead of Weld.

During his conversation with reporters, Weld ruled out running on the Libertarian ticket or as an independent if he fails to secure the GOP nomination. In 2016, Weld clinched the Libertarian Partys nod for vice president and ran on a ticket with Gary Johnson.

Weld avoided offering any endorsements on the Democratic side, but shared some thoughts about the candidates.

About fellow Bay Stater Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Weld said: She sure is smart and she sure is filled with energy. But he added that her economic policies are too far left for the country and predicted she would lose in a general election.

Weld sounded more impressed with former vice president Joe Biden, who is atop most of the Democratic polls. Ive known Biden the longest of any of these folks, Weld said.

Boston.com Today

Sign up for Boston.com Today to get the headlines delivered to your inbox.

Thanks for signing up!

Read more here:

Bill Weld backs Joe Kennedy in his bid to unseat Ed Markey - Boston.com