After reading 91 pages of oral argument I have to conclude that your synopsis of the proceedings seems to be spot on. Nice work in summarizing it for everyone. I agree with your conclusion and speculation, however, I question whether or not the decision yet to be made will have any real effect in “overturning” laws in the states mentioned. We’ll see. I sincerely hope so.

Comment by Jim Braaten — March 18, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

I think your analysis is excellent. I listened to the debate while reading the transcript and came to a similar conclusion. In my mission to use original rock to try and inspire people to spend the few minutes it takes to read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (at least), I have come across hundreds of speeches, writings, and letters from the Founding Fathers passionately supporting not only an individual right to own weapons of the same type used by contemporary militaries, but also the right and duty of an armed citizenry to overthrow tyrannical government when it becomes necessary. (And absolutely none that are counter to this view) This point is the heart and soul of the Declaration of Independence. What stunned me from today’s hearings was that not once did ANYONE reference the Declaration of Independence… the cornerstone of our Republic! If the Second Amendment is not understood in the context of being a final check and balance on government, then it is being misinterpreted.

Matt Fitzgibbons

Comment by Matt Fitzgibbons — March 18, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

Chris, I think your analysis is right on point. I was frustrated at Gura’s lack of preparedness & focus regarding what constitutes reasonable regulation, and for having allowed himself to be cornered by Stevens & especially Breyer. (I covered my face when Scalia actually appeared to try to help him answer Breyer’s question as to whether, given the murder rate, is a total handgun ban unreasonable (page 53 of the transcript) )

I agree with Matt, too, in that Gura never brought up the Declaration or the panoply of writings by the Founders — the Federalist Papers, the letters back & forth among the Founders, and even to spouses, etc.

I want to think that Ginsburg, Breyer & Stevens would not have been swayed by even the best arguments on reasonable regulation; that said, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that Gura’s general disorganization and mishandling of those questions won’t negatively affect the decision.

I was secretly hoping that Gura would get the flu & Stephen Halbrook would magically step in & argue the case. Ah, well.

Comment by Jason Owsley — March 19, 2008 @ 3:58 am

“Preventing libel, is a reasonable restriction on the first amendment, and is a compelling interest of the state.”

Which regulation ‘prevents’ libel (or slander)?

Are you saying there is some ‘fact-checking government required’ software somewhere on this system that scrutinized your article prior to it being posted? Libel laws are ‘reactive’ - they do not literally ‘prevent’ the crime.

Your right to yell “fire!” is only limited (illegal) *after* you’ve raised the alarm and when no fire existed. Your right of Free Speech is not ‘regulated’ based on your ‘potential’ to yell “fire!”.

Our ‘murder’ and ‘assault’ laws, can only be enforced *after* such has been attempted or accomplished. To suggest “reasonable restriction” on the Second Amendment means we should also consider “reasonable restriction” on your ability to speak (or write).

How about we all wear government devices that monitor our brainwaves to insure we never utter a slander or write a libel? Perhaps require a permit be obtained before being allowed to speak in public? Perhaps all pens and keyboards should require registration?

Hey, you wanted to equate First and Second Amendment rights. Just as your fear that one may shout “fire!” inappropriately is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to control our freedom of speech, your *fear* of what one may do with an arm is not is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to apply restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms.

Comment by Bruce — March 19, 2008 @ 7:21 am

Good point Bruce.

Comment by TerryP — March 19, 2008 @ 7:33 am

Gentlemen–

Hello. I haven’t had time to read the whole transcript, but caught bits and piece of the arguments.

Besides “reasonable regulation” unpreparedness, Gura also was unable to respond to the observation that references to the use of arms for self-defense are sparse in discussions contemporary to the drafting of the BOR. He should have stated that self-preservation was an obvious right (the Justices have heard perhaps of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), and who goes to pains to mention the obvious?

As it turns out, a couple centuries later, not stating the obvious was an error: some members of the Court have abandoned the idea of self-evident, natural (Creator-endowed), inalienable (does anyone even understand that word today?) rights; instead they profess that any right that isn’t nailed down by the Constitution and Amendments doesn’t exist (despite the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly saying that uninnumerated rights exist).

I would agree that “reasonable regulation” applies to all rights. Prior restraint, however, is never reasonable.

Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 8:13 am

Bruce,

The law on libel and slander, most of which is case law, has been part of Enlish and American common law since before the Colonial period.

It’s fairly obvious that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to overturn those laws.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:23 am

Chris,

A good analysis all around. For myself, I thought that Gura did a reasonably good job considering it was, as I understand it, his first oral argument before the Court. If he does come away from this with a win, he will have beat the Solicitor General of the US and a man who was arguing cases before the Supreme Court before Gura was even born.

I think what we’ll see, like you said, is a fairly strong holding on the individual rights basis of the 2nd Amendment, possibly including a complete reversal of Miller.

Beyond that, it’s going to take some time for the Court to work out a standard.

And we haven’t even gotten to the issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and it’s applicablity to state and local laws. Right now, Heller will have no impact on state and local laws no matter how it’s decided.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:25 am

Incorporation would simply be a matter of time. It would be obnoxious to law and common sense to have the Court recognize a fundamental right the US must respect, and then say that the member states of the US need not recognize it.

What will differ with each state is the extent to which they impose “reasonable” regulation. Kopel has written that the Court in Miller seemed to use the test that IF an arm would be useful to a militia, then that arm is protected. And that test would invalidate many portions of the NFA and GCA, so we can assume the Court will seek to develop a new test–what arms may be reasonably banned is at the heart of this case.

It would have been nice if Gura had suggested such a test, like: “If civilian law enforcement finds it useful, then it is protected.” Not only would such a test leave in place regulations on the “scarier” stuff (bazookas and hand-grenades), it succinctly restates the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment: that the Gov’t not be allowed a monopoly on the use (and means) of force.

Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 10:28 am

“Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
– Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006

The Constitution was written to restrain the power of government and put the power into the hands of the people. Anything that transfers power in the opposite direction is contrary to the what our founding fathers believed.

Comment by John D. — March 19, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

After reading the transcript, I think you give an excellent account of how it turned out.

It was a big relief to see most of the justices so visibly pro an individual stance, but I do have concerns about where those ‘reasonable limitations’ rest. I am guessing most of the argument will rest on where the limits are.

Providing we truly get a ‘reasonable’ limit, I’d be very happy as would others I’m sure.

Comment by Scott — March 19, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

Chris,

Great post.

I did find this particular passage very funny, though:

He was much weaker on his other contention however that reasonable restriction and a broad standard of review were necessary to protect the public interest in regulating firearms; specifically citing machine guns and “plastic guns designed to get through metal detectors” (a fantasy commonly used by gun banners to scare people into agreeing to bans in principle).

When the TSA proves that they can stop METAL guns from getting through their screening points, maybe they can start worrying about the plastic ones!

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

Indeed. What would the founders say about all this I wonder?

http://www/gopcatholics.blogspot.com

Comment by Peter — March 19, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

There have never been 80,000 deaths due to handguns in the United States in one year. Justice Breyer might want to check the source of that figure. There have been 26,000 to 30,000 deaths in any given year. The fact that the Court might want to take into account is “over 31 deaths per 100,000 each year in the District of Columbia” by guns and 81% of those by handguns. And 81% by IllEGAL handguns.The remainder of the country averages 6.5 deaths per 100,000.

Comment by steve carney — March 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

[…] at The Liberty Papers.   […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » D.C. v. Heller Wrap-Up — March 18, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

[…] District of Columbia v. Heller Gets Its Day In Court […]

Pingback by FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Semi-live Heller Oral Argument Coverage — March 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

I think it could be fairly said that at this time the individual rights argument is held as correct by the entire court; but that the justices hold different views as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction on that right.

We’re back to the same issues as privacy and free speech, with compelling interest balanced against fundamental right.

My commentary is here:

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2008/03/oral-arguments-on-heller-mixed-bag.html

Comment by Chris — March 18, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

[…] arguments in the case of D.C. vs. Heller, the handgun ban case, is great. Check out their posts here and […]

Pingback by The Crossed Pond » D.C. vs. Heller — March 19, 2008 @ 7:07 am

We have reformatted the Complete Oral Arguments and briefs from the PDF’s provided by the court into our much more easily accessible and faster EasySlide format. You can find it at:

http://PublicService.EveNDon.com

We will add the Court’s opinion as soon as it appears. All the material will remain on our site so please feel free to link to it.

If you have suggestions for additional highly topical material you would like us to handle, please post to us what it is and where to find it.

Don

Comment by Don Krieger — March 21, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

On a talk show I just heard a caller from Pittsbug who stated the there were pictures of Reverend Jeramiah Wright with President Johnson and Clinton on this web site along with articles from the Times magazine. What is the title and where on this web site can I find them
Thank You,
Ann Souza

Comment by ann souza — March 26, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

Well, with the coming of March 18th it’s started. The Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments on the case of “District of Columbia vs. Heller, and with this trial the right of the American right to possess firearms as guaranteed under the second amendment will either be given another layer of protection or be forever weakened. But I jump ahead of myself. First let me tell you about the case.

Since 1976 Washington DC has had some of the strictest firearms laws in the nation. They have enacted laws to make it illegal to possess firearms in your home unless they were disassembled, unloaded, and equipped with a trigger lock. However those laws only apply to long guns: Rifles, Shotguns, etc. Handguns were banned entirely. If you possessed a handgun, you were required to register it. When a law abiding citizen went to register their firearm they were told by the police that they couldn’t register, and that they had to turn it over to law enforcement.

DC stated that it was for the purposes of lowering crime, never mind the fact proven over and over again that states and cities with less restrictions on firearms *always* had crime rates much, much lower than those with stricter gun control laws. Since that time DC has actually been referred to frequently as “The Nation’s Murder Capitol” as the crime rate has skyrocketed over 350%. However, DC has adamantly retained its’ position that people do not have the rights to protect themselves in their own home.

To give you a further character portrait of this fine American city, they’ve decided that the police are not responsible for protecting its’ citizens either. In 1981 three women were sharing a house in DC. One night two of them were upstairs and heard intruders attacking their roommate downstairs. They immediately called the police and were told that officers were on their way there. After about 30 minutes, the other woman’s screams had stopped, and they assumed that the police had gotten there. They were wrong. The police weren’t there yet, but the attackers still were. During the court case when the women sued the city for severe negligence in their duty, the Warren court graphically phrased what happened to the three women as “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” You would think that, in that instance, the women would have easily won that lawsuit, right? Wrong. The DC court ruled ”it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

So basically the DC courts have said that people have absolutely no rights to defend themselves in DC, and that if you do attempt to, you will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as the city also has the harshest punishments in the nation for violating their “no gun” laws.

In any case, in 2003 several people sued for the right to be able to carry handguns in their home. They were security officers who were allowed to carry at their job, but were denied the same right to protect themselves in their own home. Of course, the DC court slapped them down. They took it to the Court of Appeals and the court ruled in their favor, The court ruled “Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are ‘Arms’ referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them … That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

Of course that didn’t set well with the DC courts, so they took it to the Supreme Court. And we have the case now known as “District of Columbia vs. Heller”.

There is a lot riding on this decision. Of course, the only question that the Supreme Court is concerning themselves with is “Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.” DC is arguing the case that the second admendmant only gives people in a state militia the right to possess firearms, and doesn’t protect individual freedoms whatsoever. In effect, they are saying that the phrase “the People” doesn’t actually mean “the People” like it does in every other admendmant that uses that phrase. They will be saying in that instance that “the People” actually means “who the government allows”. What if that was applied to every other admendmant that uses the phrase “the People”? Let’s see.

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of who the government allows to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of who the government allows to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV - The right of who the government allows to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by who the government allows.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to who the government allows.

Things like this scare the hell out of me. I am an Ohio CCW holder, and carry everywhere I am legally allowed to do so. I am a firm believer that every freedom and liberty that we allow to be infringed only throws more oil on the slippery slope towards having less and less before finally losing all of our freedoms alltogether.

This will effect all of us that legally possess and carry firearms now. If the court rules in DC’s favor, it opens the door to a huge amount of future legislation restricting one of our fundamental American rights. Any city could enact that, and you better believe that liberals and crazy democrats in congress would leap at the chance to legislate our right into virtual nonexistance. Don’t think that they wouldn’t. California, as we speak, is leading the charge against lawful firearms users, having tried to get bill after bill passed to make it harder and harder to own or purchase one. In fact, they’re even sneaking in the back door there by trying to legislate ammunition out of existance. Without ammunition, grandpa’s rifle that he used to tell you hunting stories about will be just a fancy club, won’t it?

However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Heller…firearms owners will finally have a leg to stand on in the federal courts. The Supreme Court will have weakened the liberal assault against our freedoms and helped reaffirm the right left to us through our forefathers to be able to protect ourselves and put food on our table traditionally.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”…here are my views on what this has always meant:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” First, Well regulated has always meant two things historically in regards to the Second Amendment. Those things being “well trained” and “firearms of a level commiserate with what was normal for a soldier to carry, along with referring to firearms of a straight lineage from what was common in the day. Also, historically, governments have *always* disarmed their citizens before further subjugating them. A well-armed populace is a threat to a tyrannical government, and gives them far too great an ability to resist. Our forefathers knew what happens when all the power rests with the government and none with the people, and they protected us against that happening. They knew that a militia in the hands of the people helped deter oppression and helped keep the people free. Hence a trained similarly armed militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

“…the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As in the first part, I believe that every word here has meaning. “The right of the people”. That’s us. WE are the people. Every single one of us Americans. “to keep” would mean to be able to possess, to own for ourselves. “and bear” would mean to carry, whether in our homes, on our persons, wherever. “shall not be infringed” means that there shall be no laws limiting our right as mentioned before, from any governmental agency, as this right is deemed inherent as an American.

Therefore, I believe that it means that all of us, to assure that our freedoms are never impugned upon and to protect ourselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government, shall have the right to own and carry firearms, and that right can *never* be taken from us.

This court case, which will be decided around June, will weigh heavily on this right. And I hope that all of you pay attention to the news, and watch this case carefully. You will be able to see if our freedoms will remain…well…freedoms, and not just allowances from a government that can take them away at any given time. Thankfully, thanks to Bush’s appointments, I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court will have enough votes in favor of personal liberty. As far as I can tell, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will rule in favor of Heller. I know almost for a fact that David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens will rule for DC. I am unsure about Stephen Breyer. However that will still be a 5 to 4 vote, which will carry us through. Let’s hope that I’m wrong, though, and that more of the judges than that realize the importance of this right.

You can find every document filed by both sides, along with who is supporting both sides, at this website that the NRA has set up:

http://www.nraila.org/heller/

Comment by Matthew Berry — March 27, 2008 @ 2:53 am

I’m sorry about that. I’ve been reading about the case and listening to the oral arguments, and I tend to get worked up everytime it seems like one of our rights is being assaulted that I went off on a bit of a rant. My apologies.

Comment by Matthew Berry — March 27, 2008 @ 2:55 am

[…] got some thoughts about the issues at stake and possible outcomes in the gun control case that will be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow up at The Liberty […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » D.C. v. Heller Preview — March 17, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

[…] Mr. Mataconis closes his analysis of the case with the following thought: The most likely outcome of the Court’s decision in Heller, whatever it might be, is that it will merely be the beginning of an entirely new area of Constitutional jurisprudence. Ten years from now, Second Amendment cases may be as common in the Supreme Court as First Amendment cases once were, and that will continue until the Court hammers out a coherent Second Amendment case law.  -=SOURCE=- […]

Pingback by A good PRE-analysis of DC v. Heller » Scott’s Morning Brew — March 17, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

I think the court will rule in favor of a collective right. It would fit in ideologically with Kelo and Raich. It would also fit in with the government, faced with the decision of backing up its own power or leaving such power in the hands of the individual, will side with keeping its own power.

I hope I am in wrong but I think the individual gun rights crowd are going to be handed a devestating defeat.

Comment by tkc — March 17, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

Chris is right that we are unlikely to see complete resolution of the gun control issue from this case

Constitutionally, the Court cannot completely resolve the gun control issue. It is limited to the case or controversy before it.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — March 17, 2008 @ 6:17 pm

[…] of the best commentary on this for laymen is over at the Liberty Papers which walks readers through a pretty thorough look at the legal landscape. The Raising Kaine folks […]

Pingback by BLACK VELVET BRUCE LI : The 2A Superbowl Kick-Off — March 17, 2008 @ 7:55 pm

tkc,

I could easily see them going for the “individual right” and the “rational basis” test instead of the “strict scrutiny” test.

That way, they get to tell you you have a right to bear arms, but don’t actually enact any meaningful limits on the government regulation of that right.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 17, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

[…] Brad Warbiany: tkc, I could easily see them going for the “individual right” and the “rational… […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Gun Rights On The Docket Today At The Supreme Court — March 18, 2008 @ 6:19 am

The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these documents all have one thing in common and that is they are about “We the People.” All these documents place the emphasis on the individual and the States, ..”Government of the people, for the people and by the people ..” the government derives its powers by the consent of the governed, that is the people, why have we forgotten this?

There is nothing in any of these documents referring to the “collective” anything. So, why in a series of documents proclaiming the “individual,” why would the Founding Fathers pick the second spot in the Bill of Rights to proclaim that gun ownership was a collective right of the government, especially when the Constitution commands the Federal Government to have a standing Army, one cannot have a standing Army without guns, now can one? Then for what reason would the Founding Fathers be redundant on this subject?

Only in a liberal mind can one read into a statement the exact opposite of what that statement says. The government is not all-powerful, it is the people who hold the power and the sovereignty of this Republic. Take another look at the Tenth Amendment sometime.

Comment by VpatS — March 18, 2008 @ 7:49 am

[…] VpatS: The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these documents all… […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » District of Columbia v. Heller Gets Its Day In Court — March 18, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

It’s about time that the court hears arguments in this case. We are guaranteed those rights by the constitution and so many radicals don’t want us to have them so that they can control us. Gun control has not worked anywhere’s else in the world where it has been implemented. Criminals do not care about laws only law abiding citizens care about laws. When will the government understand this, probably never?

Comment by rundm — March 16, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

What kind of “right” do you have, when the government can completely rob you of 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason?

That’s pretty much how the Fourth Amendment works: If the legislature decides, and the courts agree, that a search is “reasonable,” then you have no right to refuse.

Heller will be a two-part decision:

(1) “individual right” versus “state power”?

(2) If “individual right,” then what standard of review?

It would not surprise me at all if the Court found the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right, but then imposed a weak “reasonableness” standard of review. They are certainly not going to impose an onerous strict scrutiny standard comparable to the First Amendment. No way.

Comment by KipEsquire — February 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

Hate to break it to you, Stephen, but the words “Compelling State Interest” have been causing this kind of doublethink long before Obama hit the scene.

Personally, I’m waiting for Hillary to propose MiniPlenty and MiniLuv.

Comment by Quincy — February 21, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

You have a point there Quincy. There’s plenty of doublespeak to go around. As Obama gains traction, we need to make sure he doesn’t get a pass though.

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 1:12 pm

I never really trusted obama seeing as how despite his grandiloquence he never seemed to display a consistent message to me. And to think poor Doug voted for this sort of fast-talking politician…. I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson- then I remember if she is our President and we have an undivided Democratic government, it will be too late for America the Beautiful.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

NA,

I don’t regret my vote in the primary because I think Hillary would be even worse.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Stephen,

How dare you criticize the savior of our souls, the man who has made us all proud to be Americans for the first time in our lives !

Don’t you realize that if we have hope and we want change, then we can bring that change and restore the hope of the nation ? But it will only happen if we hope for change

:)

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

I know; leave it to me to leave a turd in the punch bowl :)

Back to the talking points:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

NA, Doug’s vote for Obama was a strategic vote to stop Hillary. I agree, she is worse. If my primary would have been an open primary, I would have done the same thing.

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

NA,

I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson

Me too, actually. I’d never consider voting for her because I don’t play that whole “spoiler” game, but since she represents pretty much the exact opposite of my beliefs and because I think her presidency would be a complete disaster (since she’s incapable of working with people) if I can’t have a libertarian-leaning president get elected I’d much rather see the worst, most incompetent statist get elected because I think she’d turn the entire country against her and discredit most of the programs she pushes with her, shall we say, “diplomatically-challenged” personality.

Watching the worst example of statism go down in flames while in office may actually be the best possible thing for the pro-freedom movement in the long run…it lets people know exactly what the consequences of the statist ideology are.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

I know Doug, I was just saying it’s too bad that one must “Block” a candidate as opposed to voting for one.

And this is bothering me:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6109957

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:41 pm

Stephen,

Doug’s vote for Obama was a strategic vote to stop Hillary.

A vote for the least worst candidate is still a vote for a bad candidate. And putting the more palatable version of bad policy into office only hides the consequences of that bad policy.

Voting for someone you don’t think is a good candidate in order to deny someone you think might be a worse candidate a chance at office is horrible strategy. Say Obama does get elected…his policy platform isn’t markedly different from Hillary’s and he’s got a knack for winning people over. Do you really want a statist who can do a better job of selling his policies to get into office?

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

I would have abstained from voting in Doug’s position, as protesting all options is better than the guilt I would personally have for voting Obama. But it was a primary, and to each his own. I’m not here to pass judgement. It seems that to often on this site people attack the contributors. That is ludicrous, you all do a fine job.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:47 pm

U.C.

Hillary as President would be like Nixon or LBJ redux.

Obama as President is likely to be more along the lines of Jimmy Carter.

Given the choice, I’ll suffer under the second one for a few years.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

Doug,

I don’t regret my vote in the primary because I think Hillary would be even worse.

Well, actually that means you should regret your vote in the primary. A vote for Obama is merely a vote for a friendlier, more incremental (and therefore longer-lasting) form of statism.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

Doug,

Hillary as President would be like Nixon or LBJ redux.

Nixon got forced out of office in disgrace (and replaced by a decent guy with Ford) and almost ended up in prison. LBJ was essentially forced out of office after his first full term because he was such a disaster. We should be so lucky.

Obama as President is likely to be more along the lines of Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s a lot more competent and charismatic than Carter ever was. I could actually see him being more of an FDR.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

Watching the worst example of statism go down in flames while in office may actually be the best possible thing for the pro-freedom movement in the long run…

If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws. Instead, they overwhelmingly voted for more statism because they still haven’t recognized the root cause. Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

Another FDR and we might as well be the USSA.

“When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.”

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

“Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.”

such a great analogy! I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism, I listened to the Savage radio and the man wouldn’t touch the topic of libertarianism. I also had the same experience with Sean Hannity etc. Only Tucker Carlson seems to be comfortable with Libertarianism at all.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

NA,

It seems that too often on this site people attack the contributors. That is ludicrous, you all do a fine job.

Thanks, much appreciated. But even the people who get angry and attack us can have some valid reasons for doing so at times so I try not to judge them too harshly if they’re willing to rationally discuss their reasons for doing so :) Even uncivil discourse can be beneficial sometimes.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

[quote]Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.[/quote]

such a great analogy! I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism, I listened to the Savage radio and the man wouldn’t touch the topic of libertarianism. I also had the same experience with Sean Hannity etc. Only Tucker Carlson seems to be comfortable with Libertarianism at all.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

NA,

I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism

I don’t know about that. I’ve got some friends who are extremely conservative and politically active and often we’re able to find common ground on the preferred solutions for most issues even though we disagree on the issues themselves. Most of them understand that although I don’t agree with their religion or morality I have no interest in stripping them of their right to practice their faith, and they’re usually willing to concede that it’s wrong when people of their faith try to force me to accept their ways through the rule of law. If you engage them, conservatives are like anyone else…they’re willing to compromise and find a win-win solution if you show them that solution’s in their self-interest as well. Most people really aren’t monsters.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

Jeff,

If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws.

No offense, but if Ron Paul had run a serious campaign I think that they would have. How the official campaign conducted their business was nothing short of a joke and most of his successes were in spite of his personal efforts, not because of them. The spontaneous grassroots efforts that Paul had nothing to do with are what kept him in the race.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

Jeff,

If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws. Instead, they overwhelmingly voted for more statism because they still haven’t recognized the root cause.

Good point. I still will never understand why people actually fall for the politicians’ ruse that the solution to failed government policies is more intrusive government policies.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 21, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

No, even the best-case scenario would have been a begrudging nomination a la McCain. We only stood a chance because the pro-war conservatives were divided amongst a handful of candidates.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

I still will never understand why people actually fall for the politicians’ ruse that the solution to failed government policies is more intrusive government policies.

Upbringing. Everyone alive was raised in a very statist society, so they assume the status quo exists for a good reason and they don’t care enough to dig deeper. Since they accept government intervention as a given, they relentlessly seek the magical amount.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

Jeff,

Okay, that was pretty good :) If only they’d do one about taxation and authoritarianism instead of just smoking.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

“they”? It’s up to us. That’s the kind of creative approach to voter education that might just work. The garden-variety stuff obviously hasn’t worked.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

No, even the best-case scenario would have been a begrudging nomination a la McCain.

A begrudging nomination is still a win. Because of his campaign staff’s neglect of almost every single aspect of running a serious national campaign (from infrastructure to press relations) Ron Paul took himself out of the running. If he’d been more like Tancredo or Huckabee on the issues nobody would have even noticed him.

He had the best issues by far and there was a market for them among conservatives but he did such a poor job of selling them to mainstream voters that most of the people I knew who were voting still had no idea who he was come election time. That’s not a matter of people rejecting his ideas, that’s a matter of people having never heard of the guy because he did such a terrible job of campaigning outside of the Internet.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

Jeff,

“they”? It’s up to us. That’s the kind of creative approach to voter education that might just work.

My singing and dancing suck and my camerawork is extremely shaky and lacks a dramatic eye. :)

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

most of the people I knew who were voting still had no idea who he was come election time.

That doesn’t speak well of your efforts. =P

He had the best issues by far and there was a market for them among conservatives but he did such a poor job of selling them to mainstream voters

I realize they botched an incredible opportunity. Believe me, I do.

I’m only trying to disprove your premise in paragraph 2 at 3:40. If mainstream voters had truly learned any sort of lesson, Paul’s autopilot campaign still would have worked. If people had truly learned a lesson from Bush, the “fringe” label would have been an asset to Paul. People would have been clamoring to hear more about the guy with the weird ideas.

That wasn’t the case. They simply weren’t looking to challenge any of their assumptions. A better communicator might have been able to talk them into it, but that’s a different story. They were just looking for a more competent statist.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

Jeff,

That doesn’t speak well of your efforts.

I convinced three people who’d never heard of the guy to vote for him. From what I saw the only people that most Paul supporters talked to were other people who were already Paul supporters =P

I’m only trying to disprove your premise in paragraph 2 at 3:40. If mainstream voters had truly learned any sort of lesson, Paul’s autopilot campaign still would have worked.

Seriously I’ll tell you exactly what my mom (a politician herself) told me when the gubernatorial candidate I worked for (who was also very cheap with his advertising bucks) lost his election. People don’t vote for someone they don’t know, regardless of how good his issues are.

The majority of people didn’t vote for Ron Paul because the majority of people didn’t know who the hell he was. Had he hired a real press coordinator, someone who could have coached him and helped him stay focused in the debates (when he often jumped from tangent to tangent) and spent some money on decent and frequent TV advertising I think he actually would have made this a race…his issues were so much better than his opponents’. But he didn’t, so most people didn’t think it was worth their time to hear what he had to say.

That’s not a knock on the more sane grassroots, by the way…frankly, I thought they did an absolutely remarkable job of keeping his campaign alive. It’s almost unheard of with so little direction from up top.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

UC,

“I don’t know about that. I’ve got some friends who are extremely conservative and politically active and often we’re able to find common ground on the preferred solutions for most issues even though we disagree on the issues themselves. Most of them understand that although I don’t agree with their religion or morality I have no interest in stripping them of their right to practice their faith, and they’re usually willing to concede that it’s wrong when people of their faith try to force me to accept their ways through the rule of law. If you engage them, conservatives are like anyone else…they’re willing to compromise and find a win-win solution if you show them that solution’s in their self-interest as well. Most people really aren’t monsters.”

I was a conservative myself, but I defected to the small-l libertarian ideology of the founding fathers. My point is that conservatives are unwilling to desert the Republican mainstream and that the Conservative Elites (pundits) are encouraging loyalty to the same neoconservative ideology that has been choking the Republican party for so long. I would love to say “I am a proud Republican, a Conservative/Libertarian” but I cannot due to the terrible direction of the party. I myself have spoken with many
“mainstream” conservatives and they agree with me on many things, (it helps that I share their faith) but regardless of whatever personal discourse the bulk of the Conservatives will not leave the ranks and join whatever Libertarian movement of the day there is (Ron Paul ‘08 is a good example). That’s what I see.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

NA,

My point is that conservatives are unwilling to desert the Republican mainstream and that the Conservative Elites (pundits) are encouraging loyalty to the same neoconservative ideology that has been choking the Republican party for so long.

Why not? You did it. So did I (raised in a very conservative household). Most of the time when I encounter intelligent people who identify as strictly conservative it’s only because nobody’s given them an effective explanation of libertarianism. They often think that if you believe in drug legalization or gay marriage or whatever else, it must be because you’re a crazy gay nutjob who does drugs. Once they realize that you can be both personally conservative and politically liberal on social issues they’re often willing to give libertarianism a serious look…and buy in once they realize it’s in their own best interests.

It’s all about the sales pitch. It’s always about the sales pitch.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

the bulk of the Conservatives will not leave the ranks and join whatever Libertarian movement of the day there is (Ron Paul ‘08 is a good example).

They won’t break ranks for a guy they don’t think is a serious candidate. And, with apologies to Jeff, because of how he ran his campaign Ron Paul was never really a serious candidate. But they broke ranks on Reagan, and they really broke ranks on Goldwater. Again, all about the sales pitch (and, to a degree, the salesman).

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

The majority of people didn’t vote for Ron Paul because the majority of people didn’t know who the hell he was.

Right, but 17% of the voters did have a basic understanding of his candidacy. That’s faaar more than the also-rans and those are the influential 17% anyways. That 17% knew damn well that Paul was a man advocating real change. If they wanted real change, they would have picked him up and carried him to the nomination. Instead, they dismissed him as a loon for challenging things that everyone accepted as a given.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

Jeff,

Right, but 17% of the voters did have a basic understanding of his candidacy.

They may have had a basic understanding of his issues, but they also saw him as someone whose most vocal supporters were usually “truthers” and crazy people. Often they seemed to like him personally when he appeared on things like Leno, or Bill Maher, but he didn’t do enough of that which is mainly a factor of how poorly his campaign did in selling their candidate to the press…his most concentrated appearances in the mainstream press that I saw was when he was having to defend himself against charges that he was a racist because of the newsletters. Beyond that, I rarely saw the guy. And since I was actually paying attention to the race, I’m assuming the average voter saw even less of him.

Instead, they dismissed him as a loon for challenging things that everyone accepted as a given.

They dismissed him as a loon because his most visible and vocal supporters were either crazy people or outsiders, he never developed much a presence for himself outside of the Internet, and because except for Iraq he never focused on any issues that resounded with voters. People on the Internet may care about fiat currencies and the gold standard…the other 99.9% of the electorate doesn’t give a shit. He was dismissed as a loon because he wasn’t talking about issues that the voters he was trying to appeal to cared about.

Again, all about the sales pitch.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

And, with apologies to Jeff, because of how he ran his campaign Ron Paul was never really a serious candidate. But they broke ranks on Reagan, and they really broke ranks on Goldwater.

You’re still confusing two issues. We know a good campaigner can always win regardless of issues. We know Paul wasn’t a good campaigner. That’s not disputed.

Your assertion was that a bad statist administration would open the eyes of the masses. If that were the case, Paul could have won by simply showing up at the debates. Water-cooler talk alone would have propelled him to the nomination. That didn’t happen because people didn’t want real change.

Yes, a Reagan could have sold them on it anyways, but that’s a different matter. If there was a real shift in the public consciousness, even a campaigner as bad as Paul could have beaten that pathetic field of statists.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

They may have had a basic understanding of his issues, but they also saw him as someone whose most vocal supporters were usually “truthers” and crazy people.

So did I. I had to work with some pretty ridiculous people talking about pretty ridiculous things. But there’s a difference between me Joe Sixpack: I wanted real change, so I looked past it.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

Jeff,

Your assertion was that a bad statist administration would open the eyes of the masses.

Despite his (to me) quite obvious stupidity, George W. Bush is an excellent campaigner, and he’s got some people skills and can be charming when he wants to be (developed, I suspect, as a survival skill because he’s been a fuck-up at pretty much everything in his life). He’s also an accomplished liar and a Republican candidate who ran on a libertarian platform in 2000, got a pass on his big-government ways in 2004 because of the war, and still pays some lip service to the idea of small government (even if he’s never practiced it).

Hillary isn’t any of those things.

She is (with apologies to any women on this thread) a miserable spiteful bitch who completely fucked up the only major project she’s ever been put in charge of (her husband’s health care plan) mainly because she’s incapable of working with other people and she has few (if any) personal skills to compensate for it. She was a large part of the reason the Dems got booted in ‘94. And she’s a Democrat who doesn’t pay any lip service at all to the idea of small government. Simply put, while Bush was a horrible statist, he just wasn’t horrible enough…Hillary is.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

Simply put, while Bush was a horrible statist, he just wasn’t horrible enough…Hillary is.

If she somehow manages to win the nomination, I’d love to place a bet on that.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

Jeff,

So did I. I had to work with some pretty ridiculous people talking about pretty ridiculous things. But there’s a difference between me Joe Sixpack: I wanted real change, so I looked past it.

It’s no trick to sell your ideas to someone who’s already looking to buy. The trick is convincing the disinterested voter that you’re selling something he wants. And that’s where the problem children that the Paul campaign never really got a handle on ended up working against you. Most of those guys are very likely people who weren’t talking civilly to anyone but other like-minded Paul supporters, and when they’re your primary salesmen you’re going to have trouble.

But that was really Ron Paul’s fault and not the volunteers’. At some point every political candidate out there has got to take ownership of his message and his campaign to keep everybody focused (because it is, after all, his message that he’s trying to sell). Ron Paul never really seemed to do that…he just thought that by letting things run spontaneously as they had from the grassroots it would all work out. The end result of that was that the campaign did a lot of drifting and the candidate let his opponents define him before he defined himself and it cost him the mainstream voters.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

Jeff,

If she somehow manages to win the nomination, I’d love to place a bet on that.

Done…$20 says that if she’s elected President the Republicans will win Congressional seats back in 2010 and she’ll be out after one term.

Moot point, of course, because she’s not going to win.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

P.S. You’re forgetting about the flip-side of freedom; Hillary pays lip service to the pro-freedom portion of the Democratic platform.

You’re counting on the base of the Democratic party to give an honest analysis of their own leader. Fat chance. They’ll just keep telling themselves that a Republican would have been even worse.

You don’t hear any Republicans thinking they would have been better off with Bush or Kerry, do you? You and I both know it’s probably true, but they’re too wedded to their team.

There won’t be any shift in the mainstream thinking until people start to realize the two-party system is a symptom of a structural flaw in our elections, not some inherent truth.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

It’s no trick to sell your ideas to someone who’s already looking to buy.

That’s exactly my point, though. Even after 7 years of Dubya, Republicans still weren’t looking to buy real change. Hillary would be no different. She’d just spur another round of superficial change.

Done…$20 says that if she’s elected President the Republicans will win Congressional seats back in 2010 and she’ll be out after one term.

No, I’m sure you’re right about that part. My point is that those Republican victors will all be statists too. The faces and jerseys will continue to change, but policy won’t.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 6:09 pm

Jeff,

You’re counting on the base of the Democratic party to give an honest analysis of their own leader. Fat chance. They’ll just keep telling themselves that a Republican would have been even worse.

Their base is a lot smaller than you’re giving it credit for. The only reason the Dems have Congress now is because Bush and the GOP Congress did such a horrible job when they had complete control that the moderates finally gave up on them…before 2006 the Democrats weren’t even an afterthought. Give the Dems two years in charge with Hillary at the controls and the centrists will desert them en masse.

Pre-1994 the Democrats controlled Congress for what, 40 years? Post-94 the Republicans controlled it for