Category Archives: Strategies For Advancing Liberty

The Ron Paul Republicans

Today’s Washington Post reports on something that I’m pretty sure is a first.

There’s a guy in Maryland campaigning for the Republican nomination for Maryland’s 4th Congressional District as a “Ron Paul Republican”:

In the past few election cycles, Republicans haven’t made much headway in Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes part of Montgomery County and most of Prince George’s County.

But Peter James, 52, isn’t running as just a regular Republican for the seat held by Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D). James is running as a Ron Paul Republican.

James said he is one of five congressional candidates running in Maryland at least in part to draw attention to the Texas representative, whose presidential campaign has been something of a grass-roots phenomenon. Paul advocates libertarian positions, including the abolishment of the federal income tax and the closure of many federal agencies. He opposes the war in Iraq.

James, a businessman from Germantown, said Paul will need allies in Congress if elected president. But, James said, even if his presidential candidate loses, the “Ron Paul message is stronger than the man himself.”

James acknowledged running with an “R” after his name will be tough, but he said at least a third of those who attend local weekly Ron Paul meet-ups identify themselves as liberal Democrats concerned with the growth of the federal government.

“We’re seeing disenchanted Democrats, who say ‘whether I elect Giuliani or Hillary, I’m getting the same thing,’ ” James said, referring to Republican hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). “I believe there’s a very strong contingent of voters out there who have been woken up by this message.”

I know I’ve been critical of the Paul campaign in the past, but this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen if things are going to change. Change isn’t going to come from the White House down, it’s going to come, as it always has, from the bottom up; and that means starting at the local level with City Council races, state legislative races, and Congressional races.

Now, let’s make no mistake about it; thanks to the political and demographic makeup of the 4th District, James has almost no chance of winning in a General Election against an incumbent like Wynn. But that doesn’t matter because even a losing campaign can accomplish something. It will be interesting to see if other Republican candidates across the country adopt this same strategy.

For those who are interested, James’ website can be found here.

From A Revolution To A Movement

I’ve said more than once that libertarian-oriented Republicans need to do a lot more than concentrate on Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign if they want to bring about real change in America. The Presidency, after all, doesn’t amount to much if Congress is in the hands of statists of the Republican or Democratic variety, and state governments can do far more damage to individual liberty than some people seem willing to admit.

Which is why its encouraging to see two developments aimed at ensuring that pro-liberty Republicans get the support they need.

First, there’s Paul Congress, a group that describes itself as follows:

A Ron Paul Presidency, and by default the American public, will benefit greatly from a Congress filled with Ron Paul Republicans (traditional Republicans), Libertarians, and Ron Paul Independents. Maxed out your contributions to the Paul Campaign? Want true Constitutional representation across the board? Maximize your peace, liberty, & prosperity.

What is the best way to get these candidates elected? Financial contributions and volunteering. Realize the neocon & neoliberal corporate-payrolled candidates become media darlings because of all their connections and all that cash, and not their principles. Our liberty loving candidates need the effort and contributions of many honest voters just to get an even footing. Please take time to donate to them and sign-up to get active on their web sites now.

So far, there are only two candidates on their endorsement list, but its a start.

The other group is called Liberty Slate `08:

The Republican Party has abandoned the principles of fiscal discipline, committment to limited government and individual rights, and social tolerance. In an effort to rejuvinate the GOP’s committment to these principles, LibertySlate08 was founded to:

1. Recruit at least a dozen small government Republican candidates for CONGRESS in 2008 to challenge Republicans in state primaries.

2. Provide Republican primary voters with a choice of contrast between credible, energetic small government candidates and old, outdated Big Government incumbents.

3. Emphasize key issues such as a return to fiscal discpline, an end to the War in Iraq, opposition to the draft, and Congressional term limits.

4. Spark a NATIONAL DEBATE within the GOP about the party’s future. (Gain press for our candidates, our issues, and our goals.)

5. Provide a challenge to incumbent politicians that have NOT been challenged in decades due to gerrymandered districting.

If you’re interested in this project, please contact [email protected] . The time to present our alternative to Big Government Republicanism is NOW. Please step up and join Team Liberty.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Breaking: Two Officers Surrender In Johnston Death

(WSB Radio) Two Atlanta Police narcotics officers have turned themselves in to federal marshals as part of their plea agreements in the manslaughter death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.
WSB’s Veronica Waters reports Gregg Junnier, 40, and Jason Smith, 35, pleaded guilty in April to civil rights charges and voluntary manslaughter in Johnston’s death. Both admitted they lied to a judge to get a no-knock search warrant for the woman’s Neal Street home in November 2006, then conspired to plant marijuana in the home when there were no drugs there.

Those revelations prompted an in-depth probe of corruption in the APD narcotics unit, and in Fulton County some 70 cases have not been prosecuted–having had the charges thrown out–as a result. Smith and Junnier have been cooperating with the FBI, which could help them when they are sentenced likely next year, after the Fulton County trial of a colleague.

The men are expected to testify in the April 2008 trial of Arthur “Bruce” Tesler, who has pleaded not guilty to violating his oath, false imprisonment of a confidential informant and making false statements.

Defense attorney John Garland describes J. R. Smith as a man who once viewed himself as “a war hero and a good-guy cop getting drugs off the street,” yet now has grasped the idea that he deserves to go to prison.

“The realization of what he did that day that led to the death of Kathryn Johnston, and the practices and procedures that led up to that, has really forced him to reanalyze who he is as a person,” Garland tells WSB. “He’s come out a totally different person. He’s a fragile human being. He’s suffered.”

The APD’s narcotics squad has since been revamped and restaffed, adding more checks and balances, structure and supervision as well as providing the officers with extensive outside training.

On the anniversary of her death, Johnston’s family filed suit against the city of Atlanta.

While its good to see that Kathryn Johnston’s killers will face justice, perhaps even more importantly, this case should shed some light on this phenomenon of late night “no-knock” raids and the ease at which warrants for these raids can be obtained. My fear is that far too many people are willing to give authority figures from the police all the way up to the president the benefit of the doubt instead of giving our public servants the scrutiny a free society requires. I believe this to be the case when a jury convicted Cory Maye for “murdering” Officer Ron Jones when Officer Jones and other narcotics officers kicked his door down in the dark of night nearly 6 years ago. The prosecution wanted the jury to give more weight to the testimony of the police officers than the testimony of the defendant. The jury dutifully complied.

The police always act in good faith when seeking a search warrant.

Informants are always reliable sources.

The police never lie under oath or make false statements in police reports.

The police never plant evidence.

The police would never violate an individual’s civil rights.

Judges always consider requests for search warrants carefully.

This is what we are supposed to believe. By now we should know better. Are we supposed to believe the Atlanta Police Department (or any police department for that matter) when they say they will have “more checks and balances, structure, and supervision” with “additional training” ?

Color my skeptical.

The only way we can expect change is to demand citizen oversight. Ronald Regan used to say “trust but verify” when dealing with the Soviet Union. As citizens, this should be our motto as well when dealing with our public servants.

This crime against Kathryn Johnston and her family in the prosecution of the war on (some) drugs should also be used to confront each and every one of the presidential candidates. What is their position on no-knock raids? What should happen to individuals who have been placed in a position of trust who cover up their crimes against citizens? As unbelievable as it may be for many of us how presidential candidates can cavalierly blow off individuals who use cannabis to relieve their pain, surely such an arrogant treatment towards victims of no-knock raids would not play as well in the general public?

Maybe they should also be asked the follow-up question: “Is the lives of innocent citizens worth continuing to pursue this losing war on (some) drugs?”

Authoritarians in both political parties want to dismiss us libertarians as crazy for demanding an end to the war on (some) drugs, that doing so would result in chaos.

Wait a minute…they call us crazy?

Libetarianism Co-Option Watch

A lot of people are calling themselves libertarians these days, but it seems doubtful that many of them really believe in a consistent philosophy of individual liberty. When the word “libertarian” can be used to self-describe someone like Bill Mahr or Markos Moulitsas, it’s pretty much devoid of any meaning.

The latest example comes from Patrick Ruffini, who has a column up Hugh Hewitt’s blog discussing what he thinks libertarianism’s future is all about:

 Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.

To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.

Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.

When he’s analyzing elections, Ruffini is top-notch, but he’s also a conservative so it’s understandable that he’d be under the mistaken impression that just because Ron Paul opposes abortion rights and thinks that states should have the right to ban gay marriage that libertarians as a group have suddenly adopted the social conservative gospel on either of those issue. If he paid more attention to libertarians than he apparently has before Ron Paul ran for President, Ruffini would know that his positions on abortion and gay rights are not shared by most other people who call themselves libertarians.

In Ruffini’s mind, then, Ron Paul has succeeded because he melded libertarianism with social conservatism. Therefore, he seems to argue, if libertarians really want to succeed, they should adopt neo-conservative foreign policy.

But then it really wouldn’t be libertarianism would it ?

Libertarians can and do disagree on foreign policy issues, and there’s been more than enough criticism of what sometimes seems like a naive view of Islamic terrorism that comes from some corners of the movement. And there is plenty of disagreement with the idea that the United States should withdraw inside its borders and not worry about any nation that can’t directly strike us. But there’s absolutely nothing that neo-conservatives who think that invading Iraq was a good idea, even if it was badly executed, can offer that would be of value to libertarianism.

So what would Ruffini define as libertarianism ?

As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists

On some level, this almost sounds appealing. Absolute freedom at home ? Sounds good to mean. Eternal vigilance and ruthlessness in the face of our enemies ? Sounds fine too.

The problem comes when you remember that the “absolute freedom” that Ruffini talks about is tempered by social conservative and Christianist restrictions on personal liberty for those deemed to be engaging in “unacceptable” behavior and that our experiences since 9/11 have indicated that the price of vigilance all too often includes unacceptable intrusions into the civil liberties of American citizens and that ruthlessness often includes the use of methods of torture that one would have thought the civilized world had left behind long ago.

Ruffini is right that the American public may well react negatively to someone who says that the United States is to blame for 9/11. Additionally, opinion polls consistently show that the American public has a different view of the War on Terror than they do of the Iraq War.

But opposition to the Iraq War doesn’t necessarily equate to adoption of the foreign policy views of the guys over at LewRockwell.com, and there’s no need for libertarians to turn into Norman Podhoretz for the sake of winning elections.

Are We All Libertarians Now ?

As I noted yesterday, Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch wrote in yesterday’s Washington Post about the rise of a libertarian voting bloc, most notably found in the movement that has grown around the Ron Paul campaign.

The more interesting question, though, is whether the American public really is becoming more libertarian, and what that means for the country’s political future.

At Liberal Values, Ron Chusid argues that the ideas that are taking hold with the public resemble libertarianism, but aren’t of the doctrinaire variety that seems to motivate those attracted to Ron Paul’s campaign: 

Libertarianism, especially as advocated by Ron Paul, is not the only pro-freedom philosophy and in some cases does not advocate freedom as seen by most Americans. Most see freedom in terms of how government impacts their lives, not whether the Federal Reserve is ended or American returns to the gold standard. Americans who reject the social policies of the religious right will find many of the same faults in Ron Paul, who denies that the founding fathers envisioned a secular society characterized by separation of church and state and who claims that the founding fathers envisioned the United States as a Christian nation. Paul’s support for federal legislation banning so-called partial birth abortions and legislation to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a fully developed human contradict his claims of both supporting freedom and supporting state’s rights.

Chusid also makes point that I’ve made myself several times, that Federalism and individual liberty are not necessarily the same thing:

The stress for state’s rights is also not what most Americans are looking for when seeking freedom. What matters is the relationship between the individual and government, regardless of level of government. Turning duties performed by the federal government over to the states might sometimes be good, but this is not necessarily a matter of greater freedom. Often it is the reverse. Paul’s lack of acceptance of the 14th Amendment, which extended Constitutional liberties from the federal government to the states, could result in less freedom. It is often necessary to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. It is far easier to gain a majority to restrict liberties in a state or local area as opposed to nationally

As I noted in the comments to this post, the post-Reconstruction history of the South, dominated as it was by Jim Crow and the often brutal suppression of the individual liberties of black Americans, was by it’s very nature entirely a creation of state law and the reluctance of the Federal Government to do what needed to be done to enforce the 14th Amendment.

That’s why, for people who want to restrict the role of government in their lives, the idea of simply transferring power from Washington to, say, Trenton, isn’t entirely attractive.  Additionally, with the Civil War now 140 years in the past, most Americans no longer think of themselves primarily as residents of the state in which they happen to reside but as citizens of the United States — the idea that their home state, assuming they even still live in their home state, deserves some special loyalty is alien to most Americans. Therefore, a political movement based primarily on “states rights” is unlikely to have the appeal that it did even back in the 1950s.

Chusid also notes that Americans haven’t fully accepting the libertarian message because they have come to believe that there are some areas where government is necessary. While I don’t agree with him entirely on this point, it’s hard to deny that this is at least partially true.

Chusid’s argument is similar to the one advance by Cato Institute scholar Brink Lindsey, who has argued that America’s creation of a mass affluence society has established trend that, on the whole, will lead to a political environment that is more skeptical of state intervention but accepts the role of government in the economy at some level.

It’s not a libertarian utopia, but it’s also not another Sweden and that, at least, is a start.

1 56 57 58 59 60