Category Archives: Libertarianism

One of the hallmarks of this present age is our growing inability in Western society to define anything with any degree of cogency. As J.K. Rowling has pointed out repeatedly, the concept of woman is now a matter of bitter debate and not, as it was until the day before yesterday, something that was essentially tied to biology, even if some cultural variation regarding what constituted femininity has always existed. But it is not simply those words targeted by the mainstreaming of the least plausible aspects of modern academic theory that have plunged into the abyss of incoherence. Others have become victims too, not least the whole notion of conservatism.

What is modern conservatism? Is it the Christian nationalism that haunts the nightmares of so many evangelical elites? Is it working-class populism that pits itself against the claims of the privileged panjandrums of the progressive political class? Is it just code for a rejection of any notion of progress? Is it a radical libertarianism? Or is it the vision, now an increasingly forlorn hope, that was set forth in book after book by the late great Roger Scruton and inspired so many of us over the years? The answer, I suspect, is that all of the above are considered by somebody somewhere to be conservatism.

Nowhere is this problem seen more dramatically, yet seductively, than in the rise of gay conservatism. The recent Twitter announcementby right-wing pundit Dave Rubin that he and his same-sex partner are expecting two children later this year is a case in point. The post plays powerfully to the spirit of our age: two attractive and charming young men smiling with delight as they display the sonograms of the children they will be welcoming into the world. The moral narrative is what we might term an aesthetic one: The visible happiness of the couple is the key thing, and that plays to the spirit of our age. There is no larger moral vision by which the picture is to be judged.

There must, of course, be a larger moral vision, no matter how overwhelmed it is by the photogenic nature of the subjects. The creation of new life, and the circumstances surrounding such, is something of pressing importance not simply to the couple involved but to society at large. The moral vision here is that whatever makes the modern man or woman happy and which technology makes possible must be good. That may be the spirit of the age, but it is not the spirit of conservatism.

Conservatism and same-sex marriage are incompatible because, whatever else conservatism is, it respects the basic boundaries and limitations of what it means to be human and thus the limits that places on human relationships. The latter denies this, even if it can on occasion couch itself in the trappings of domestic traditions originally built upon such limitations, as here in the winsome picture of two people anticipating parenthood. But this is not parenthood that respects human limitations, such as sex difference of parents or of the child as a created gift rather than a manufactured commodity, whatever the personal sentiments or intentions of the adults involved. It is a form of human relationship made possible by the marriage of technological capabilities, late modern moral tastes, and a basic rejection of the natural structure of reproductive relationships.

In fact, gay conservatism has more in common with an increasingly influential strand of revolutionary thought than with conservatism more broadly considered: cyborg feminism. This was a strain of feminist thinking developed in the 1970s and 80s by thinkers such as Shulamith Firestone and Donna Haraway. This was a feminism that looked to technology, specifically reproductive technology, to shatter all distinctions between the sexes. And at the center of this was the matter of reproduction: By using technology to conceive children, the burden (as they saw it) of motherhood would finally be lifted off the shoulders of women and the last great oppressive division of laborthat which naturally existed between men and womenwould be abolished. This note has recently been picked up and developed by contemporary feminist Sophie Lewis in her campaign for what she dubs gestational justice. It is no coincidence that cyborg feminism is trans-affirming, for biological sex is merely a condition that technology must be used to overcome.

Gay conservatism is much the same, only more so with the attempt to be more tasteful and less threatening in its aesthetics. It repudiates traditional marriage while parasitically feeding off its traditional trappings to give its revolutionary character a veneer of traditionalism and an emotionally attractive appeal. Yet gay surrogacy is the move that gives the game away: It operates with precisely the kind of technologically enabled logic outlined by Firestone, Haraway, and Lewis, all of whom were far more honestor perhaps merely more astute and self-consciousabout the implications of their thought. Those implications are as socially and politically revolutionary as anything advocated by Firestone and Haraway, and the tragedy is that its conservative advocates do not seem to understand that. Cyborg conservatism, like gay conservatism, is no conservatism at all. Not even close.

Read the original:
Gay conservatism is a contradiction in terms - WORLD News Group

Even some Democrats are sensing a shift in the political winds and adapting accordingly. The leading challenger to Gov. Kathy Hochul in New Yorks Democratic primary race, Representative Tom Suozzi of Long Island, this week joined Republicans in Albany who have criticized the states 2020 bail reform law as too soft on dangerous criminals.

When theres no consequences for crime, Suozzi said, crime keeps going up.

What a return to tough-on-crime messaging could mean for policy at the national and state level remains an open question.

The United States presides over one of the largest inmate populations on Earth about two million incarcerated people spread across more than 1,500 state prisons, 102 federal prisons and thousands of other detention facilities large and small. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden pledged to cut the number of people in prison by more than half, but there is scant sign of progress toward that goal.

A conservative turn against reducing the prison population would make Bidens promise nearly impossible to fulfill.

Adam Gelb, the president and chief executive of the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan policy and research organization based in Atlanta, said he saw signs of retrenchment on the right, but added, Too many strands of the conservative coalition have been woven together to unravel entirely.

That coalition has been an unusual set of political bedfellows: fiscal conservatives who object to prisons as a bloated, expensive bureaucracy; libertarians who fear government overreach into peoples private lives, especially when it comes to drug use; and evangelical Christians who believe in second chances and redemption. Hard-right traditionalists like Cotton and Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri were never part of that group, advocates emphasize.

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states including Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah are all moving ahead with moves to limit no-knock warrants, revamp civil forfeiture rules and expunge criminal records for nonviolent offenses.

See the article here:
Jackson's Hearing Shows How Republicans and Democrats Are Diverging on Crime - The New York Times

But this leads to the second point, which is that dissent can still be important in cases where the interventionists are initially correct. Our decision to topple the Taliban in 2001, for instance, remains the right and necessary call in hindsight, notwithstanding the debacles that followed. But that didnt make Lees dissenting vote any less important because it anticipated the disaster of our nation-building effort, the over-expansive application of the authorization to use military force, the various abuses of presidential power in the War on Terror.

Likewise, in the current moment theres no way to know for sure whether Thomas Massies libertarian warnings about the Houses measures that theyre overly broad, escalatory and liable to presidential abuse will be borne out by events. But its entirely possible for arming Ukraine to be good policy and for Massie to be right that some elements of the American response to Russian aggression could go badly or disastrously astray.

Finally, dissent matters because the potential scale of a disastrous outcome in a conflict with Russia is so much greater than even the worst-case scenarios in other recent wars. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that because of the Biden administrations caution, theres only a 5 percent chance that our support for Ukraine leads to unexpected escalation, to the American militarys direct involvement in the war. Whereas if you looked at the Bush administrations policy toward Iraq in late 2002, you would have said that the odds of a war for regime change in that case were well over 50 percent.

On that level, the Biden policy seems much safer for a cautious realist to support. But that hypothetical 5 percent risk carries with it some still-more-fractional risk of nuclear escalation, which is a much more existential danger than even the more disastrous scenarios for Iraq. That has to create its own distinctive set of calculations. Even if the Biden policy is the best course, you still need an unusual level of vigilance, a somewhat hyperactive caution, around the possibility of escalation. And here the anticipatory critique of elite failure that were getting from the populists becomes valuable: Not because it will necessarily be vindicated, but because even a small risk of elite folly is worth worrying over when nuclear weapons are potentially involved.

For a practical example of that folly from Republican politics, consider the G.O.P. Senate primary in Ohio, where J.D. Vance has been running as a populist traitor to the intelligentsia that helped make his Hillbilly Elegy a best seller. (Full disclosure: I used to have long conversations with Vance about the future of the G.O.P., if youd like to hold me responsible for the tone of his campaign.) That populist pitch has included a strong dose of anti-interventionism, which led him to declare his indifference to what happens to Ukraine, relative to domestic concerns, just before Vladimir Putin gave the order to invade.

Its a comment that has been highlighted and condemned by populisms critics since the invasion, and in the recent Republican Senate debate Vance took predictable fire over the issue. But in the same debate the two candidates who are seemingly ahead of him in the polls, Mike Gibbons and Josh Mandel, both endorsed an improbable halfway kind of escalation a no-fly zone somehow imposed by Europeans rather than Americans, with the idea that this would thread the needle between thwarting Russia and accidentally starting World War III.

It was an idea that only Vance wholeheartedly condemned, and he was right. Under wartime conditions, the escalatory fantasies of his rivals have our European allies close Ukraines skies, and then when they get into a shooting war with Russia, we do what? carry a more immediate risk than the dangers of populist indifference, the flaws of isolationist dissent.

Here is the original post:
Opinion | Why We Need Wartime Dissent - The New York Times

When Im asked to explain Web 3.0 I always try to start by explaining that the world is far more diverse than just coins and financial assets.

This is similar to my old saw about history being more detailed than just who won what war and why. Culture is not just coinage.

The entirety of the human experience, which arguably will be predominantly expressed via the web if anywhere in technology, is vast and rich beyond monetary action. Only about half of transactions even involve money at all.

Yet, for many people their only topic of interest or focus on technology is how to capitalize as quickly as possible on anything new. Beware their depictions of the Web solely as finance instead of encompassing our most rich and interesting possibilities.

Geolocation data, as just one facet, has long been recognized as a source of power and authority. Think of it in holistic terms of the English and Dutch cracking the secretive Portuguese spice trade routes and upending global power, instead of just focusing on the spices being traded.

Knowledge is a form of power, which have been expressed as political systems far more vast than markets alone could ever encompass.

Here is an example to illustrate how oversimplification of humanity down to financial terms becomes an ethical quagmire, highlighting some very important mistakes of the past.

Ukraine cancelled a Crypto airdrop.

a lot of people were abusing the possibility of an airdrop by sending minuscule donations just to benefit themselves. This is a common tactic among crypto investors, known as airdrop farming.

Farming is in fact the opposite of what is described here. Growing food at low margin so that others may gain has somehow been framed backwards: extraction of value from someone elses plan to help others.

In other words airdrop farming is far more like airdrop banking as it has nothing in common with farms but a lot in common with banks. It begs a question why there there was any direct return and benefit of donations, given what has been said in past about that loop.

Appropriation of the term farming in this context thus reads to me as propaganda; we may as well be in a discussion of Molotovs WWII bombs as a delivery of bread baskets.

Likewise in the same story Krakens CEO displayed complete ignorance by saying his company would be on the side of Russia in this war and could not help Ukraine because in his mind political Bitcoin only has libertarian values.

Exchanges including Coinbase, Binance, KuCoin, and Kraken all refused Fedorovs February public request that they freeze all Russian accounts, not just those that were legally required by recently-imposed sanctions. The companies said such an action would hurt peaceful Russian citizens and go against Bitcoins libertarian values, as Kraken CEO Jesse Powell put it.

Calling Bitcoin libertarian is like calling diamonds bloody.

In fact, Bitcoin is notoriously slow-moving (terrible for payments) and notoriously volatile (terrible for currency) just like blood diamonds being extracted from dirt at artificially low cost to artificially inflate their value to a very small group desperate for power.

Mining doesnt have to be an exercise in oppressive asset hoarding with a total disdain for the value of human life, but Kraken clearly displays here they operate intentionally to repeat the worst thinking in history.

So what values are we talking about really? Proportionality (tailoring response to the level of the attack, avoiding collateral impact) is not a libertarian concept, obviously, because its a form of regulation (let alone morality).

Note instead there is complete lack of care for victims of aggression on the principle of protecting peaceful among aggressors, with absolutely no effort to prove such a principle.

Its sloppy and exactly backwards for a Bitcoin CEO to claim he cares about impacting others. The inherent negative-externality of Bitcoin means it carries a high cost someone else has to pay, proving that if Kraken cared about peaceful Russian civilians it would shutdown all Bitcoin since it harms them all while benefiting few if any.

Systemically redistributing transaction costs from selfish individuals to society instead, while claiming to be worried about societal impact of an individual action is dangerously reminiscent of nobles and clergy of pre-revolutionary France who ignorantly stumbled into their own demise.

The Web already is so much more than a narrow line of thought from the ugly past of feudal thinking, and 3.0 should be more broadly representative of the human condition instead of boxed in like this by selfish speculators trying to get rich quick through exploitation and manipulation of artificially constrained assets.

Read the original:
Feudalistic Threats to Web 3.0 - Security Boulevard

A few times during his hourlong speaking engagement at UC Hastings School of Law on March 1, students briefly stopped shouting down Ilya Shapiro and goaded him to speak. Each time, the prominent constitutional law scholar and mouthpiece for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute managed only a few words before students banged on tables and chanted Black lawyers matter to drown him out again, according to a video recording shared by the law schools Black Law Students Association.

Shapiro was on the San Francisco campus that day to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy as part of an event organized by the schools Federalist Society, a conservative libertarian group. But Shapiro had shared his thoughts on the matter more than a month earlier. In a since-deleted series of tweets, he said President Bidens pledge to nominate a Black woman would result in a lesser black woman serving on the nations highest court.

Shapiros casually racist tweet quickly got him suspended from a new administrator job at Georgetown University Law Center, but didnt scotch his appearance at UC Hastings, which triggered the student protest.

On March 2, UC Hastings Chancellor David Faigman and his fellow deans sent a letter to students scolding them silencing a speaker is fundamentally contrary to the values of this school, the letter reads and hinting at possible disciplinary action. The letter also argues that legal professionals must be able to engage with the full range of ideas, legal arguments, or policies that exist in the world as they find it.

More from Justin Phillips

UC Hastings spokesperson Elizabeth Moore told me the school would not provide further comment.

The way the schools leadership chided students made me think about how Black people are expected to be docile in the face of insensitivity. In this vein, Shapiro is a lot like the Republican mob attacking federal appeals Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings. Both use the topics du jour of white nationalism Shapiro implying that Black folks are intellectually inferior; Republicans grasping at culture war talking points that have nothing to do with Jacksons record.

Not challenging rhetoric that is ignorant or actively intolerant only serves to legitimize inequality. The responses from UC Hastings students and Judge Jackson reveal the necessity of speaking up.

A few weeks after the Shapiro event, the Black Law Students Association, with support from allies and some of the schools faculty, sent UC Hastings leadership a letter and list of demands regarding how the school can address its racial equity issues.

Included in it was data from a 2021 UC Hastings Campus Climate Advisory Committee assessment, which was shared with The Chronicle and found that 40% of respondents of color, including multiracial people, experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct at the school within the previous two years. Only 8% of white respondents reported the same experiences.

Among the students demands was for the school to ensure that no disciplinary actions will be taken against students who exercised their free speech rights during the Shapiro protest.

Dominique Armstrong, a co-president of the Black Law Students Association, told me that as much as the protest was about Shapiro, it was also about Black students not feeling welcome on campus.

One of the schools big things is telling us to be advocates, Armstrong said. But if you cant advocate for yourself, how can you advocate for your clients?

Shapiro described the protesters as an unruly woke mob taking part in a national cancellation campaign. But what I saw were passionate students taking a stand for change they felt is long overdue. I saw the faces of individuals who could one day follow Judge Jacksons path, on which theyre forced to both confront Americas shortcomings and help the country overcome them.

Thats grueling, thankless work, as Armstrong already knows. Its exhausting for Black students like myself to constantly have to explain how something is racist.

Which is why, for me, it has been equally spectacular to watch Jackson push back against often-hysterical Republicans during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Republican senators have floated absurd QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories in their desperate attempts to make Jackson seem like a judge who is sympathetic to people convicted of possessing images of child sexual abuse and who uses critical race theory to shape her decision-making.

Jackson has been calm and measured in her responses, often pointing out that her record is a balanced one that cant be seen as supporting one viewpoint or another.

Underneath the GOP theatrics is their palpable fear of Black people like Jackson attaining positions of power.

Jacksons loudest moment, in my mind, came toward the end of Wednesdays marathon session when Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., asked her to address young people who may want to follow her path. Jackson capped off an emotional reply with this line: I would tell them to persevere.

In other words, silence simply isnt an option.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Justin Phillips appears Sundays. Email: jphillips@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JustMrPhillips

See more here:
When Black people refuse to quietly endure intolerance, amazing things can happen - San Francisco Chronicle

Andrew Yang rose to prominence on the back of a very peculiar idea: universal basic income. This proposal that every American should receive a no-strings-attached $1,000 check from the federal government every month propelled Yang to the presidential debate stage. Though it was impressive that he shared the stage with experienced politicians like (then Vice) President Biden and several senators, his lack of experience and a stable base were ultimately his downfall.

Leaning into meme culture and popular podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience, Yang often touted his approval rating with Independents and Trump supporters, but he was sorely unable to transform that general likability into cold hard votes.

After this impressive but nonetheless disappointing campaign for a relative newcomer to electoral politics, Yang transitioned to running for mayor of New York City. I wont delve too deeply into Yangs journey from leading the mayoral primary to a disappointing fourth-place finish, but rest assured that his subsequent failure hinged on the same issues: an inability to form a coherent base from merely a friendly smile and some unique ideas.

After his defeat to current New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, Yang made a public announcement.

He had formally left the Democratic Party and formed the Forward Party. He announced this new party in his book of the same name. Forward which I read laid out the platform of ranked-choice voting, open primaries, fact-based governance, human-centered capitalism, modern and effective government, universal basic income and grace and tolerance.

Yangs core claim was that this party, with its hodgepodge of reasonable-sounding policy ideas, would be able to fill a gap in the American party repertoire that both Democrats and Republicans were neglecting. Through an assortment of commonsense policies aimed at reforming government, Yang believes this party could inspire action in a diverse coalition of discouraged and infrequent voters.

In some sense the polls are on Yangs side: many of his ideas are certainly popular. Seventy-seven percent of Americans agree that campaign spending needs to be curtailed. Eighty-two percent side with his call for Congressional term limits. Nine in 10 Americans share his stance against partisan gerrymandering. With 42% of Americans identifying as independents, this should be great news for a party that aims to capture the politically homeless middle.

Unfortunately, even though a plurality of Americans identify as Independents, as many as 91% of Americans have a significant preference for one party or the other, with the leftover 9% of true Independents varying significantly in race, occupation and economic interests. This makes forming a base from voters with common interests like how Democrats captured the union vote and Republicans successfully courted evangelicals very difficult.

Currently, the Democrats base is largely young people, urbanites, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people and those with college degrees. The Republican base is largely white evangelicals, business owners, those living in rural areas and voters older than 65. These bases are sustainable, based on groups with shared interests and are able to mobilize effectively to achieve concrete outcomes.

Even though Yangs policies are broadly popular, the electorate he is targeting centrists who are dissatisfied with the political system are, as the Pew Research Center describes those in the middle, Stressed Sideliners the group with the lowest level of political engagement. This makes them the least effective voters to be targeting. The polling I exhibited earlier (that was generally approving of Forwards main ideas) displays much less the strong principled standings of likely voters who are ready to jump on board a new party, and more the vague preferences of those who dont vote in midterm or local elections. A sustainable, enduring third party cant be made up solely of unlikely voters.

That is not to say there is no room for another party in the American political system.

The most successful third party in recent history was the Reform Party, led by Texas billionaire Ross Perot in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. In 1992, Perot, utilizing a mishmash of right- and left-wing ideas, famously captured almost 19% of the vote, making for a third-place finish. Despite this relative success, the coalition disintegrated when Perot was no longer on the ballot.

I appreciate that Yang has been reluctant to put forth a Forward Party presidential ticket, as third parties often do. Focusing on local and statehouse races is much more rewarding for a party hoping to get a foothold than doomed White House runs. The Libertarian Party, for instance, has a singular state legislator elected nationwide (two are listed on the partys website, but John Andrews of Maine changed his affiliation to Republican last year). Instead of investing in local and state races, the Libertarians focus their electoral energy on securing a measly 1% of the vote every presidential election cycle.

Third parties, at least in their incipient stages, seem to be dependent on having a strong personality at their forefront. Yang can capitalize on his already existing fame like how billionaire Ross Perot did in 92 and 96 to hopefully help his down-ballot candidates move along in the future.

Polling shows that Yangs political base during the presidential primary largely consisted of non-voters, men under 44 and Asian Americans. Many of Yangs most vociferous supporters were those who would fall into the Tech Bro category.

If you want a place with a strong base of wealthy donors, a generally left-of-center voter base and high populations of Asian Americans, there is a clear answer. Yang has an obvious strategy in front of him, but it will require him to pick up shop and move West.

Californias election laws favor third parties more than almost any other state in the U.S.. Since 2011, the Golden State has had a top-two primary system, wherein all candidates Democrats, Republicans and Independents have run against each other in an open primary. The California Secretary of States office describes the process as candidates are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election regardless of party preference move on to the general election. Yang included this idea of open primaries in Forwards platform, so taking advantage of it for electoral gain would be serendipitous.

Lets digress from the political realities and focus instead on concrete outcomes for a moment. I want this new party to succeed. Even though we certainly differ ideologically, if even half of the ideas in Yangs book were implemented, we would be in a much better national position to take the 21st Century by the throat. But I know he can do better. If Forward ever becomes a more substantial organization currently both registered Democrats and Republicans can join, which is incredibly odd, and not how a legitimate political party operates it must focus on a demographic it can win, as opposed to targeting the least engaged voters on the political spectrum. Trying to secure what some have called the politically homeless middle is a noble endeavor, but it cant be the sole objective of a serious party in these polarized times.

Julian Barnard is the Editorial Page Editor and can be reached at jcbarn@umich.edu

Continue reading here:
Are Andrew Yang, Joe Biden & Donald Trump the future of US politics? - The Michigan Daily

Editors Note: Elliot Kaufman, letters editor of the Wall Street Journal, Alexandra DeSanctis, a staff writer for National Review, and Saurabh Sharma, the president of American Moment, joined City Journal associate editor Theodore Kupfer for a conversation on the future of the American Right. The following transcript has been edited for clarity and economy.

Teddy Kupfer: I want to start off by thinking a bit about the title of this event, which is Whos Right? The question is an allusion to the tendencies that occupy the right side of the political spectrum: social conservatives and libertarians, neo-conservatives and populists, RINOs and reactionaries. But more controversially, the question could be construed to imply that some of these tendencies may be more authentically conservative than others, or that certain views should take priority in a conservative coalition.

These divisions certainly exist, and we will discuss them as the panel proceeds. But I wonder if they might conceal an underlying unity. Take the issues of rising crime, deteriorating public order, public-health overreach, and the long march of progressivism through the institutions. Its reasonable to assume that you three are all concerned by these trends. My first question is: Do you think that these areas of agreement can form the basis for conservative politics in the year 2022?

Alexandra DeSanctis: I think that they can. I tend to think that the areas where conservatives agree are a lot more important than where we disagree, when it comes to whom we elect, at least. What they do once theyre in office is not necessarily as simple. But I would point to the campaign of Glenn Youngkin, in particular, as evidence that the things we agree on are more important, because what the Left is doing right now troubles conservatives a lot more than what we ought to do in response.

The Left is going particularly crazy. Theyre pushing for things that are deeply unpopular, as Youngkin and the success of his campaign showed. Even though conservatives might disagree a bit about what we should do in response, if were in charge we know that pushing back against the Left is more important than quibbling over where we might disagree. I suppose the problems weve had with Donald Trump might dispute that a little bit. But for the most part, responding to the Left is the most important thing. And we can do that without fighting over where we disagree.

Saurabh Sharma: I think that if you take the question that you posed very narrowlyIn 2022, what should the Right be running on? Ending the disorder in our cities, the racialization of public education, and the general overreach of the Leftthat is perfectly fine. But in any other time horizon, it is wholly insufficient. If all the Right can muster in the United States is the idea that after the Left wins decades of victories, well marshal the tiniest response to slow them down a little bit, thats not a governing agenda. Eventually, permanent political victories or something that looks close to permanent political victories are very possible on the left of center. I look for more than just a reactive agenda that can be held by the Rightone that has something to offer to the American people beyond were not those crazy people over there.

Elliot Kaufman: I think theres no reason why there couldnt be unity, especially now, as Saurabh mentioned. Conservatives are not in power. Opposition usually has a unifying effect in that way. We can agree on what were against. On what were for, we can agree up to a point. On a variety of issues, unity could be possible. But in many ways, its a choice.

If there are micro-movements on the right that would like to spend all their time bashing other people on the right, well, then theres probably not going to be unity. In many ways, its that simple. If were going to have an environment on the right in which anyone who has a traditional, post-1945 foreign policy is going to be called a war-monger, or, worse, a war criminalif were going to have a kind of Right where everyone who believes in traditional, small-government conservatism is accused of not caring for the poorthen there probably wont be unity. That kind of rhetoricthats liberalism circa 2005. So, if were going to have 2005 liberalism on the right, even when we are in opposition leading up to a winnable midterm election, no, I dont think unity is in the cards.

Teddy Kupfer: Lets ground this discussion in some specific public-policy demands. I often hear it said that social conservatives have been the junior partner in the conservative consensus. The foreign-policy hawks got their muscular posture in Europe, the free-marketeers got their tax reductions and privatization, and what did social conservatives get but a string of defeats? Republicans almost stand idly by as abortion rights are entrenched in American life, same-sex marriage is legalized, and raising a family on a single income becomes basically impossible, depending on where you live.

I wonder if you think this criticism is true, and if it is true, to what extent social conservatives should jettison, or at least be suspicious of, the institutions that presided over this junior partnership.

Alexandra DeSanctis: I think its fair to call it a junior partnership. Something that I appreciate about the conservative perspective is that cultural problems are not, first and foremost, something that the government solves. Families, individuals, communities, civil society: those are the first bulwark against cultural problems. The federal government does not need to come in and solve every social issue that we might have. Thats why I would say that, if theres a junior partnership, it exists at the federal level.

For example, a few years back, we had Republicans in control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency. Theyve been promising for something like ten years to defund Planned Parenthood. Did they defund Planned Parenthood when they were in charge? No, but they passed a tax cut. Im perfectly happy for them to do that, but Republicans tend to run at the national level on defund Planned Parenthood or other social-conservative promises, and then they get in office and forget about it. I dont think that means that the conservative movement or the Republican Party as a whole doesnt care about social issues. Its just at the national level that its a problem.

Things like education and defunding the police are social issues. All these things that have been hot-button issuesidentity politics, abortionthe Republican Partys starting to notice, Hey, wait a minute, as the other side goes crazy like I said before, we can push back against that in a way that resonates with the average American, even if they might not be as conservative as us. So I see that shifting quite a bit in a way where social conservatives actually have a leadership role to take.

Elliot Kaufman: Part of the reason the position of social conservatism has deteriorated somewhat on the American Right is that it has deteriorated somewhat in America. There are fewer social conservatives in America than there were a few years ago. And you could say that at almost any point in the past several decades.

When I see the renewed aggressiveness from social conservatism, it seems to me that its not a sign of a new strength, but a reflection of a new weakness: realizing that things arent getting better and our position is getting worse, and therefore we must be all the more aggressive in what we do, in what we say, or else whats going to happen to us? And the problem with that strategy is that it pushes social conservatives even further into their corner. When they start talking not about winning over Americans, but when theyve given up on that and say, Were going to get power and then coerce Americans into doing what we couldnt convince them to do, I see that as a trap for social conservatives, whose causes I very much share.

I also think social conservatives underestimate how much they need other kinds of conservatives. When you think about religious liberty, and whos doing work in the courts; when you think about school choice, which should be crucial for religious conservatives: libertarians and economic conservatives are actually doing a lot of the work in those areas. Without that alliance, the position of social conservatives will collapse. A coercive, go-it-alone strategy will only make matters worse.

Saurabh Sharma: I think the last example that Elliot gave is a perfect reason to believe that social conservatives have been the junior partner in this coalitionand that they should be the senior partner. Take the example of school choice. For the better part of three or four decades, the conservative movement has worn its yellow scarves one week, every year. Its gone and stood in front of state capitals and the national capital and proclaimed school-choice week.

We all say that were for school choice, but if you look at most of the institutional forces that have been pushing school choice, the traditional arguments they made were culturally secular arguments about efficiency, about making sure that people can go to better schools on the basis of grades or on the basis of the conditions of the schools that they were in. And largely, that movement stagnated.

Why has educational choiceand, really, education policy in generalseen such a resurgence to prominence in American life today? Because the focus went from secular arguments about efficiency to a culturally and socially conservative argument about what can legitimately be called anti-white racism in American schools: the institutionalization in public education of some of the most horrific racial essentialism that weve seen in American history. That is an example of social conservatives having much more influence when theyre in the drivers seat than a more fiscally conservative, a more libertarian, a more culturally agnostic vision of conservatism would have.

More broadly, why have social conservatives been relegated to junior partners in the conservative movement? It doesnt really make any sense, because on a constituent basis, social conservatives have much less representation vis--vis the people in charge in Washington than do primarily fiscal libertarians or foreign-policy hawks. Its not even close, and I think its important to ask why that is and why we should continue to let it be the case when some of the most acute recent examples of conservative victories involve cultural issues that a GOP of yesteryear would not have touched with a ten-foot pole.

Elliot Kaufman: I dont see how you can talk about the resurgence of school choice without ever mentioning the pandemicwhat teachers unions did, or when parents actually heard what their kids were being taught. And all conservatives are opposed to critical race theory. Its not just a social conservative argument, it is a unifying argumentalong with what was dismissed as a concern about efficiency. Thats a weird way of phrasing teaching your kids well.

Teddy Kupfer: Another thing I hear when I have conversations like these is that the right-wing economic agenda is out of touch with the challenges the United States faces today. As China rises, we hear about the need for maximal free trade and the problems with proposals to build industrial capacity. As drug overdoses skyrocket and labor-force participation remains anemic, we hear about the need for occupational-licensing reform. And as progressivesin control of major institutions stamp out dissident views, we hear about how tech companies are very innovative and creating lots of value for their shareholders. Is there something to the critique that what the nation needs is more state action, both to build up the country in the face of its external challenges and to repair its internal degeneration?

Elliot Kaufman: Lets start with China. Absolutely, the U.S. state needs to be there. It needs to be active. And when I hear about who thinks we shouldnt confront China and should instead shrink from it, its often elements of these new micro-movements that want to use the state seemingly everywhere else. So that confuses me. The Quincy Institute, lets say, can come together to agree that we should let China off the hook. I dont agree with that.

Teddy Kupfer: Before you go further, lets drill down on China. I recently heard a summary of the populist agenda as encompassing hawkery on trade, immigration, border security, and Chinabut also requiring restraint in foreign policy. This presentsan obvious tensionthat has bubbled over in recent days. Three prominent realignment figures called recently on the U.S. to show China mutual respect for a civilizational equal and warned against descending into mindless hawkery. How should we resolve this tension? Do we show China the respect that it is due? Do we try to check the Chinese economic advance but without standing to military attention?

Saurabh Sharma: My primary concern about the Chinese is the systematic de-industrialization of the United States that has occurred over the last 30 to 40 years, that has largely accrued to their benefit. China and the elites who enabled its rise are a generational threat to American prosperity.

Chinas rise was the choice of domestic policymakers in the United States who allowed our industrial capacity to flow to Southeast and East Asia over the last 40 years. That was a choice that was made. It wasnt the perfidious red dragon encircling the globe choking off our trade lines. And China, as a rational state actor, took advantage of that in order to create an industrial base in their country.

So who should be blamed? I dont want to have some sort of national animosity toward China because they did what was rational on the global stage and saw a free lunch. I want to hold the policymakers in the United States that made those choices accountable. And then I want to implement policies that would start to rebalance that trading alignment.

The last part that I want to draw scrutiny to is American prosperity, maybe in contrast to American liberty. I am not worried about a million-man swim across the Pacific Ocean by Chinese gunboats looking to invade Los Angeles. What I worry about is the fact that we have basically no native capacity for industrial production, for medicine production, for technology production, or anything else. And so, in a world where political, economic, and state capital is limited, we must focus on the most acute crises. I care a lot more about the fact that we cant make a silicon chip or a medicinal drug or steel in this country at the rate that we need in order to have some level of national autonomy than I care about putting more aircraft carriers in the South China Sea. Thats how I reconcile it. We need to dwindle and draw down our foreign-policy commitments across the globe.

Elliot Kaufman: I take issue with the idea that the decline in U.S. manufacturing was a choice. Those who have looked at this have found that U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined at the same rate as in most other Western nations, regardless of the degree of interventionist economic policy. There are secular issues at play. For instance, labor advantages: labor is much cheaper over there than it is here. The idea that the U.S. was going to keep the same number of industrial jobs if policymakers just cared more about certain people doesnt stand up to scrutiny. Id also point out that U.S. manufacturing has not gone away; output has increased. Whats gone away are many manufacturing jobs. Why? Because of wage advantages. So, U.S. manufacturing has moved up on the value chain where capital plays more of a role, and U.S. productivity is higher.

On foreign policy, what we are talking about is not Chinese gunboats coming for us, but first for Taiwan. And if that happens, then our Pacific strategy is shot. The rest of the countries in the region will have no choice but to rally to the Chinese side. And then were facing a real juggernaut, including on economic terms, with the resources that China will be able to summon.

Even if you are only worried about China as a sort of economic threat, rather than a threat to American liberties, I think we have strong reasons to increase U.S. military spending, which is at 3 percent of GDP now, down from the Cold War peak of 7 percent. It could be 4 percent, it could be 5 percent, and it would be worth it.

Alexandra DeSanctis: I think thats very well said. Its not mutually exclusive to build up U.S. manufacturing, and also to acknowledge that China is our No. 1 enemy that wants to destroy us. They didnt just step into this vacuum that policymakers createdthey intentionally exploited our weaknesses because they hate us, they want to destroy us, theyre a human-rights abuser. And so while we can focus on whatever problems we might have at home, its important to keep that in mind as well.

Teddy Kupfer: Theres a certain moral authority that comes when members of a political elite can claim that their views are not just the provenance of Washington, but are authentically held by the common man, the median American. Ive seen graphs by Lee Drutman passed around where there are lots of dots in the top-left corner, suggesting nobodys actually a libertarian. I hear talk about the Middle American Radicals, who dont actually oppose receiving federal health-care benefits.

But these are not the only analyses of American public opinion. Folks like David Hackett Fisher, Matthew Walther, andothers have identified a folk-libertarianism that runs deep in the American fabric: from the Scottish borderers who came to the backcountry in the 1800s, to the Barstool Conservatives who today like legal gambling and watch porn but are against cancel culture and for free speech. And the most popular directionally anti-left figure in the country is a DMT-evangelist-bodybuilder-libertarian-comedian. Libertarians catch a lot of flak in Washington, but isnt there a folk-libertarianism woven into the American fabric? Doesnt that mean something as both a political and policy matter?

Elliot Kaufman: Absolutely. It has to. Anyone who doesnt think that theres an impulse in this country to say to the government, hands off, is not paying attention. Any conservative movement that would surrender hold of that impulse is doomed.

This goes back to something that you asked me before. Okay, new challenges, right? Shouldnt this be the time to drop our default suspicion of government action, of state action? I think this would be the worst moment to do that. We are in the midst of unprecedented restrictions on Americans liberty, the pandemic restrictions. People have been forced out of their livelihoods, forced out of society; kids have been forced out of schools.

We have seen an unbelievable overreach by the state ignoring peoples rights. There was a crisis, so people will say, I guess you have to do something. But people are waking up right now. I think we are seeing this folk-libertarianism reassert itself in a strong way.

Alexandra DeSanctis: I dont consider myself a libertarian, so Im happy to criticize things about the libertarian point of view. But I think libertarians have a natural and important home on the right, and civil libertarianism is essential to conservatism. Its essential to being an American. Its deeply politically unpopular to suggest that theres no room for individual rights or we need the state to do everything for us. Thats a Democratic tendency, right? So, as much as I agree that there are places where libertarians go too far in the individual-rights direction, certainly on social issues, in my view, that is not a reason to say that they dont belong on the right. All conservatives should have a vision of the human person that necessitates respect for individual liberties.

Saurabh Sharma: I love folk-libertarians. Theyre great. Heres the thing, though. Lets take the context of the pandemic. Folk-libertarianism implemented in public policy will get you a lifting of municipal mask and vaccine mandates. But when people still have to wear masks, and show vaccine cards in airports or in businesses, those same folk-libertarians are very happy when Ron DeSantis bans private institutions from implementing mask mandates, or vaccine mandates. Folk-libertarian Republican voters have no problem when you tell them that we should regulate Facebook, Google, and any other institution they believe is censoring conservatives into the dirt. That does not trigger their libertarian priors, because they see it as an infringement on the spiritual principle of liberty when the largest technology conglomerates in the country conspire to ensure that right-wing political speech is subordinate. There is a clear distinction between folk-libertarians and the kinds of people who populate this town, whose goal is to enshrine Section 230, or implement capital-gains-tax cuts, or open our borders for some faux-libertarian reason; between folk-libertarians, with the things that they want to preserve in the American way of life, and the libertarian priorities of policymakers in this town. Theyre almost two entirely separate universes.

Teddy Kupfer: Ideological movements have long been prone to infighting, and American conservatism in 2022 is no different. Populists have complained that legacy institutions are more interested in policing the boundaries of conservatism than in defending the principles that they allegedly exist to conserve.

But is this tendency to gatekeeping limited to these legacy institutions? Shortly after Election Day in 2020, the editors of another think-tank-aligned magazine published an article not only calling on Republicans to fight the result but also calling out their weak sisters on the right. Do you worry that various right-wing factions are sometimes more interested in sharpening their elbows and defending themselves against internecine enemies than in trying to expand their coalition?

Alexandra DeSanctis: I worry about that a lot. At the political level, that kind of thing makes a lot more sense, especially in the primary context. There are important distinctions, when were talking about voting, to be made between particular political platforms on the right. But since Ive gotten into conservative journalism, when Donald Trump was marching toward victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, Ive seen an absurd level of fighting among conservatives at a time when unity would much better serve us. And the things were fighting about are not actually that important. The distinctions between one conservative flavor or another are not so vital compared with what were dealing with on the left. A lot of it comes from an oversaturation with social media, people looking for attention and trying to elbow to the rightperhaps to be the true conservativeand getting people to pay attention to you.

I think that sort of thing is really damaging. If someone said to me, I think abortion is wonderful, but Im for tax cuts, Id say, Okay, thats fine. Thats a conservative policy. I dont really want the conservative movement as a whole to be pro-abortion, I dont love that about you, but youre welcome to consider yourself a conservative. There are ways in which we can say what our main mission ought to be without ostracizing people who agree with us on one issue but not another. But a lot of it comes down to personality, to people trying to suck the air out of the room for their own personal attention.

Saurabh Sharma: No one opposes The Conservative Case for Writing Essays at Each Other Until We All Die more than I do. Im a big believer in convincing young people to get involved in substantive policy questions and to delete their Twitter account. We do so in our programming at American Moment. However, I will say the ability to call for unity is a luxury of power. You get to call for unity when you are the dominant faction on the right, or in any ecosystem thats being described. Its the same thing with an appeal to true conservatism. Part of the reason why I dont really hyphenate my conservatism is because I think that the ability to determine what is true conservatism is a luxury of power. Why not fake it til we make it? Im willing to call the whole set of policies that I believe in true conservatism, and well see if I end up being correct.

Theres how the Right approaches politics and how the Left approaches politics. The distinction is ultimately to the Rights detriment. The Left believes in a kind of tactical ecumenism. They will never punch to their left, and often they kind of wink and nod and say, whatever youre doing thats crazy on the left is fine. Kamala Harris encouraged people to donate to bail funds for rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, or wherever that particular riot was. Can you imagine the equivalent of it from a right-of-center vice president? It just wouldnt happen. Or it would be met with enormous scorn: editorial pages would heap scorn on any vice president, or president, or any other major official who did so.

You can have fulsome, aggressive disagreement within your own faction while also recognizing that the goal is to move in a particular direction. And if we want a fusion consensus to be the centerthe mainstream of policy and American lifeguess what? There necessarily has to be a bunch of stuff to the right, and a bunch of stuff that some will probably disagree with, because the cultural forces that exist are deeply encouraging to leftward trends and very discouraging to rightward trends.

My problem with the idea that we cant be fighting is, it results in the status quo: where anything to the right of a certain incumbent mainstream consensus in the conservative movement is Hitler, and anything slightly to the center-left of that is good-faith disagreement that must be contended with, and the people responsible for that slice must be welcomed into the conservative movement with open arms.

Elliot Kaufman: You said that one advantage that the Left has is that it doesnt punch left. Thats not an advantage that I want on the Right. There are racists to my right. I dont want them on the team. I think that including them on the team will end up hurting us more than anything because the media, and the Left will say, Thats all of them. And I think we make their job easy when we refuse to punch right. Im proud to punch right when were dealing with truly bad people.

By the way, people in some of these conservative micro-movements criticize other conservatives and punch right all the time. From my point of view, American Moment? All it does is punch right. But thats your prerogative.

Saurabh Sharma: You are welcome to scroll through the Twitter feed of American Moment. I think youd be surprised. We exercise pretty serious institutional discipline. Whats on my Twitter feed, I dont feel the need to put opinions are my own, but its entirely separate. I dont really care about that particular criticism.

What I will say, however, is that the Left told Mitt Romney he was going to put black people back in chains. It doesnt matter how genteel or how kind you are, how tightly you police the borders of your own faction. You can nominate the most demure, august leaders for any political movement. The Left will apply the same smear to everyone from Bari Weiss to David Duke. To them, they are all racists, or suspected white supremacists. The question is, how do you operate in political life recognizing that that label is going to be used to tarnish most of your political faction?

Elliot Kaufman: The Left will call us racist no matter what, but it matters to me whether theyre right or theyre wrong. And itll matter to other Americans, too.

Teddy Kupfer: It may be a mark of our youth that we have managed to go through a discussion of conservative politics without saying the name Ronald Reagan. But if you will indulge me, close your eyes and think about the 1970s.

Conservatives are either out of power or struggling to do anything while they are in power. There are many factions. National Review expresses a hardline anti-welfarist politics and a hardline anti-Communist politics. Traditionalists prefer communitarianism to capitalism and look fondly to the Southern Agrarians. Neoconservatives in the cities seek to both counter radicalism and advance pragmatic reforms to the welfare state. And a New Right takes a populist line, gaining appeal in the Midwest and on the West Coast, criticizing its competitors for not fighting hard enough.

All these factions clashed at times. Then they were eventually unified under one leader who managed to incorporate elements of each tendency and help all feel represented. So how do todays conflicts rate in the history of the American conservative movement? And can you imagine a figureyou dont have to say a namewho could reach this synthesis among all the various conservative factions once Trump leaves the scene?

Saurabh Sharma: One of my favorite Bible verses is Ecclesiastes 1:9: There is nothing new under the sun. I believe the same is true about internecine right-wing warfare. This is part of the reason why you will never hear me use the term New Right. One, because thats exactly what the National Review crowd called themselves when they were the insurgents fighting against an incumbent entrenched bureaucracy on the right that saw them as ridiculous radicals. And two, because I also believe there is nothing new about the ideas that there should be sanity in our immigration policy, our foreign policy, our trade policy, and that we should take cultural battles seriously. Those ideas have been championed by patriotic, decent people for the last half-century.

Internecine battles on the right are very common. Perhaps there is a roadmap we can look to in the past on how these things can be reconciled. This is where the whole three-legged stool thing gets very interesting. It is a perversion of the idea of what the coalitional right was toward the end of the twentieth century: that the conservative operator in a place like D.C. is someone who is simultaneously a foreign-policy hawk, a cultural conservative in private matters, and a social conservative in the few government areas of abortion and religious liberty, and also an economic libertarian. That political consensus was the process by which different parts of a faction came to compromises that were embodied in particular politicians and rank-ordered in legislative agendas. They were never meant to be embodied in all people all the time.

That is the roadmap for what a consensus would look like todayrecognizing that there are legitimate primary threats that each of these factions sees and finding ways to negotiate, in accordance with how theyre represented in the electorate, a new conservative consensus that takes seriously the challenges of today, much like Ronald Reagan did as president.

Who could do it? You took Trump off the table, but I will say, tonally, it looks a lot closer to Donald Trump than it does anyone else in the Republican party. At this point, things are dire. When Ronald Reagan was elected, conservatives enjoyed a silent majority in the broader populace. They enjoyed some level of cultural power such that people were able to get movies occasionally suppressed for lewdness or anti-American sentiment. They definitely had the power of corporate America behind them. And they were able to win elections.

What is it that the Rights looking at today? Total loss on the cultural level, an unclear consensus in the mass of the American people, because most people acclimatize themselves to whatever the prevailing consensus is. Most people are going to lean left because thats where it seems like most of the power is. The Right has lost corporate America, and the Fortune 500 list is full of some of the largest donors to civilizational enemies of the Right and of the country that youll ever find. Occasionally, were able to win elections, but when we do, we dont do much to address these power imbalances.

I do not blame people when they look at someone like Trump, who actually fights the disempowerment that the Right feels by sticking it to cultural forces, by telling the biggest CEOs that they can go screw themselves, and certainly by talking to the permanent ruling consensus in D.C. with utter contempt. Tonally, it is an approach of combativeness on policy. But it is a consensus that recognizes the premier threats that face us today.

Alexandra DeSanctis: Ive been reading recently about the 1980 primary campaign among Republicans, and it was as nasty as anything Ive seen going on lately. It was heartening to see that this has been happening forever. But the situation that were facing as a country is new. Were in a very different place than we were then, particularly in terms of where the Left has gone since then, what theyre standing for now, especially in cultural terms. And the world has changed: globalization, digitization, social media.

We need a different type of candidate. And I think Saurabh was right, too, that there was something about Trump that was appealing. As much as I didnt like him, there were certain things that he did that other politicians hadnt done, and where he was successful. But there was something about Reagan that people loved, and Reagan managed to unify the Right very successfully. He won 49 states, by the way. Can you imagine a Republican doing that now? It would take a really outstanding personsomeone of good character. And by that, I dont mean someone who is polite all the time. I mean a good, decent person who Americans respect, regardless of which side of the aisle theyre on. That really matters, and we shouldnt give up on that, even though the other side, and the world, I guess, has gotten quite nasty.

Elliot Kaufman: Its not hard to understand why people talk a lot about Ronald Reagan. He was incredibly successful.

I saw an ad recently from Blake Masters, whos running for Senate in Arizona. Im not a big fan of his, but he started it off by saying, Why is it so difficult to support a family on a single income? And that may be a New Right framing, but its a good onea good question, certainly. Well, three important things have gotten more expensive in America. And he named them. You could, too: housing, health care, and education.

Whats been happening in each area? We cant build homes, so of course the price is going to rise. We cant build homes because of all these regulations: he focused on environmental regulations, because thats a more popular issue, but as we know, there are many other regulationszoning, for example. Government regulation is stopping that market from operating. On health care, Masters said that you cant find health-care prices. Without prices, market mechanisms dont work. And finally, education. Masters said that universities are expanding bureaucracies to raise costs, and they can get away with it because of government subsidies and student loans. Once again, the government is doing it.

I thought about the message: a New Right diagnosis of the problem with small-government solutions. That could be a powerful message. I told this to my friend, Sam Goldman, and he said: Thats what Reaganism was. Reaganism was a merger of populism and conservatism in a way that didnt make it seem extreme, which Barry Goldwaters conservatism sometimes did, but in a way that made it seem like the most common-sense thing in the world.

Think about those problems of the 1970s: inflation, stagflation, crime, welfare, national dishonor. Stagflation we dont have today, but four out five? Not bad. When I hear people saying that Reaganism has gone stale, I think they dont understand what Reaganism was, and they dont understand our present moment, either.

Read the rest here:
What Is the Future of American Conservatism? - City Journal

Top Democratic operatives see expanding defections by Hispanic voters to the GOP, worsening Democrats' outlook for November's midterms.

Why it matters: Democrats had hoped this might be a phenomenon specific to the Trump era. But new polling shows it accelerating, worrying party strategists about the top of the ticket in 2024.

A Wall Street Journal poll last week found that by 9 points, Hispanic voters said they'd back a Republican candidate for Congress over a Democrat.

What's happening: Democrats saw evidence of this shift in 2020 in House races in south Florida, Texas and southern New Mexico.

Our thought bubble: Latinos, especially Mexican Americans, still lean Democratic. But Democrats have been losing ground among these voters in recent elections because the party hasn't been paying enough attention to them.

New Mexico Democratic political consultant Sisto Abeyta said he's been ringing the alarm bells for months that Democrats in his state were losing Hispanic men: "And everyone has been ignoring me."

Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, based in D.C., told Axios his party keeps hiring political consultants for U.S. House races who know little to nothing about Latino voters:

See the original post:
Democrats to lose more ground among Hispanic voters, operatives warn - Axios

One can imagine a just war between a state representing individuals who want to be free and left alone and, on the other side, a tyrannical state aggressor intent on subjecting and looting the libertarian country. If the libertarians win, liberty would increase in the world. But reality is never so simple and war instead typically reinforces, on all sides, the power of the state and the idea that the individual must submit to the collective. War does not bring out the best in all people (contrary to what state propaganda suggests, including the parading women soldiers in Moscow shown on the featured image of this post).

An interesting Wall Street Journal story about the successful resistance of a small Ukrainian town illustrates how war arouses primitive instincts (Yaroslav Trofimov, A Ukrainian Town Deals Russia One of the Wars Most Decisive Routs, March 16), although I admit it is not the most tragic illustration in the history of warfare:

Russian soldiers took over villagers homes in Rakove and created a sniper position on a roof. They looked for sacks to fill with soil for fortifications, burned hay to create a smoke screen and demanded food.

A local woman who agreed to cook for the Russians is now under investigation, said Mr. Dombrovsky. A traitorshe did it for money, he said. I dont think the village will forgive her and let her live here.

In the practice of war if not generally in tribal morality, a traitor is anybody who takes another side than his tribes. But note the other element in the story: she did it for money! I suspect that Mr. Dombrovsky would not have been happier if she had done it for free, perhaps for the cause, and with a big smile. At any rate, money is apparently an aggravating factor (even if paid in deeply depreciated rubles), which corresponds to the reigning orthodoxy among our own academic philosophers.

A moral case can be made that coerced cooperation with the violent aggressors of ones neighbor is acceptable, but not cooperation for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits. But then, isnt avoiding harm a personal benefit? Does it matter that Mr. Dombrovsky, who is a special forces commander, is presumably paid himself? What if the woman had cooked for free and was only paid a tip afterwards ?

We dont know enough about this case to make any serious ethical analysis, but I would bet that Mr. Dombovskys comment reflected a generalized suspicion toward individualist behavior on free markets. If that is true, we are not dealing with the pure war case of a group of libertarians defending themselves against aggressors, but with two more or less authoritarian camps. Not surprisingly, dealing with actual cases is more complicated than with stylized models.

All that seems to confirm the classical-liberal or libertarian idea that an individual usually acts in his own personal interest and that only a minimal ethicsJames Buchanan would say an ethics of reciprocityshould be recognized as a necessary constraint on personal behavior in a free society. (See my review of Buchanan Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative in the forthcoming Spring issue of Regulation.)

Female Russian soldiers of the Military University of the Russian Defense Ministry march along the Red Square during the Victory Day military parade to mark the 72nd anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War, the Eastern Front of World War II, in Moscow, Russia, 9 May 2017.

Continued here:
The Traitor Was Paid to Cook for the Russians - Econlib

By Tom Baxter

Last week, as 2,189 candidates were qualifying to run for office this year, there was an ominous reminder that going forward, election results in Georgia may never be as cut and dried as they used to be.

By a majority of 73 percent, voters in Camden County rejected plans to build a commercial spaceport in which the county has already invested more than $10 million. The turnout was 17 percent, which is low but not out of line with a lot of local special elections. Local residents succeeded in getting a vote on the question after a petition drive in which they gathered some 3,500 signatures. The county commission is challenging their right to hold the referendum in a court suit.

Heres the ominous part: Instead of accepting the landslide vote as the end of the line for this long-debated project, the county commission filed an emergency motion to block certification of the results until its lawsuit is settled.

Its not such a surprise the county would do this. Both sides are heavily dug in on this issue, enough to exhaust every possible legal remedy. The Georgia Supreme Court quickly denied the motion, while allowing the lawsuit challenging the referendum to proceed.

Still, the refusal to accept even this clear a demonstration of the voters will makes you wonder whats going to happen in upcoming elections when the outcomes are much closer, and local election boards in many parts of the state arent as nonpartisan as they were before the 2020 election. There is a growing tendency not to accept the results of elections, even when the margin is 3-to-1.

This doesnt seem to have dissuaded people from running for office, however. Of the candidates who qualified last week, 996 are Republicans, 597 are Democrats, five are independents and four are Libertarians. The remaining 587 candidates are running in non-partisan races.

These totals might lead you to think that Republicans are either more numerous or more fractious than they really are. Every small rural county controlled by Republicans has roughly as many local offices as a large urban Democratic county, so there are a lot more Republicans in these local races, unchallenged by Democrats.

And while former President Donald Trumps beef with Gov. Brian Kemp has generated challenge races down to the level of insurance commissioner, overall Republicans dont seem more likely to do battle with each other in primaries than do Democrats. For instance, there are four candidates running for lieutenant governor as Republicans, and nine running as Democrats.

Its noteworthy that this is the highest office for which a Libertarian is also running. The presence of Libertarian candidates on the ballot caused runoffs for the U.S. Senate in 1992, 2008 and 2020, but that wont happen this year.

The races for state legislative seats probably give us the best indication of the balance between the parties and their relative fractiousness. Overall, 257 Republicans are running for the House or Senate, compared to 241 Democrats. In 42 races, Republicans dont have Democratic challengers; in 28 races, Democrats dont have Republican opposition. House District 28 in northeast Georgia has the most Republicans vying for office six, with one Democratic candidate. House District 90 in DeKalb County has the most Democrats five, with one Republican.

For all their partisan differences, the Democratic and Republican legislative candidates are very similar in many respects. The average age of the Republican candidates is 53. For Democrats, its 51.

The Democrats have 22 candidates who list themselves as attorneys or lawyers and 18 retirees; the Republicans have 21 retirees and 21 attorneys. Its hard to sort out candidates who are business people because they have different ways of identifying themselves. Republicans have the edge in this category, but not by as much as youd think. Interestingly, the five candidates who list themselves as entrepreneurs are all Democrats, while the two candidates who list themselves as CEOs are Republicans.

Four Republicans and three Democrats list themselves as retired military. The only chef candidate is a Democrat; the only chiropractor, a Republican. All in all, the candidates are a pretty wide reflection of what Georgians do for a living. Of course, the winning candidates may be a different story.

Thanks to Maggie Lee for her able data crunching.

View original post here:
When 3-to-1 is challenged, what about the close races? - SaportaReport