Reinventing Libertaria

The Washington Dispatch ^ | May 27, 2003 | Gary Cruse

[gcruse]

---

Reinventing Libertaria

Should the Libertarian Party, a party that barely shows up on political radar as it is, be further split? Has the LP written itself out of post 9/11 America? In a country moving perceptibly to the right, does a retrenched, leftist Democratic Party open up middle ground for its own replacement to the right?

As a small 'l' libertarian, I increasingly find myself at greater odds with the LP than I am with conservatives. When social conservatism is replacing the Tenth Amendment (the powers not delegated to the United States ...are reserved to the States) with any number of Commandments, a party of individual liberty and responsibility should be highly visible. The Democratic party has been equally contemptuous of the Tenth when that party has been in power. Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

The Libertarian Party might be poised to make such a run, but not in its present incarnation. A couple of planks in the party platform are serious anachronisms and must be dealt with first.

Completely out of step with America today,a'foreign policy of non-intervention and peace' sticks out and resonates with recent anti-Iraqi war sentiments. Isolationism was almost a necessity when the oceans made dealing with the rest of the world more nuisance than blessing, but not any more. Anti-terrorism cannot be a winning hand without the cooperation of nations capable of harboring future Osamas. As to an announced policy of peace, let the lambs be silenced. There is an insidious, woolly-headed thinking among the naifs of society who are willing to settle for lack of conflict, for now, and call it peace, without regard to the wolfy machinations on their doorstep.

France and England had a treaty with Poland to come to each other's aid if attacked. When Germany invaded Poland, the treaty was enforced to the extent that war was declared but nothing else was done, bringing about the Phony War that allowed Hitler to gobble up someone else (it's always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the common good) while Poland's friends worked to restore the 'peace.' We used to call that appeasement, but now it's peacekeeping. The subtle shift in emphasis from defending what is worthwhile to redefining 'necessary' as 'expendable' isn't negotiating, it is surrender. Well, maybe it's negotiating. "I'll give you everything you want, but that's my final offer," might be dressed up enough to dance with, if you're that desperate.

As road maps go, expecting Israel to give up the Golan Heights, a strategic sacrifice of elephantine proportion, for useless promises of peace from those who unfailingly call for her extinction, secures a peace that passes understanding, not to mention overtaking credulity. The Libertarian Party's notion of peace is appeasement in Birkenstocks.

The other disconnect I have with the LP platform is the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, which, coming from the Libertarian Party of Texas is a 'kick me' sign I wouldn't want to wear around the Alamo. I'd still be laughing at that if I didn't know they were serious as a front yard fiesta del tercer mundo.

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism? The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here. The primary mandate of sovereignty is survival, a principle easily translated into libertarianism's recognition of the individual, with his full complement of rights and responsibilities. At the national level, this is vaporized without border control and amounts to shattering the individual writ large.

That's why I got the 'L' out of Libertarian in favor of raising a little 'l' of my own. Being a libertarian may be a step in the direction of conservatism, but being a Libertarian puts me in the pocket of people out to kill me.

As constituted, the LP will remain off the political radar, and small 'l'ers will agonize over how far down the ticket the silliness has to be before one can safely vote for it. So far, dog catcher is not far from the ceiling. A party rethought without these suicide clauses might do well as the major parties peel away from each other. The Republicans look to have a lock on 2004, so there's plenty of time to get a new dog ready. This one won't hunt.

---

Gary Cruse is a steely-eyed photofinisher in Texas.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Ah, I was waiting for you to bring up fishing. If you're talking about harvesting fish from the oceans, then yes indeed, the oceans can be considered a "commons". However, the original discussion was about interdicting access to the San Francisco harbor, and clearly the use of the term "tragedy of the commons" does not apply to simple road ways, since, if we except simple wear and tear from our consideration, a road can be used indefinitely without being exhausted. Strictly speaking, a road is not a resource, unless you're a robber baron with a toll gate.

What's a "Constitutional Libertarian"? Is that same bastard socialist dodge like the term "fiscal conservative"?

[tpaine]

Ah, I was waiting for you to bring up fishing. If you're talking about harvesting fish from the oceans, then yes indeed, the oceans can be considered a "commons".

Big of you to "wait", and to concede the point.

However, the original discussion was about interdicting access to the San Francisco harbor,

Which point I brought up in rebuttal to owk's point that 'commons' were 'the problem' best solved by private ownership of the world. -- An obviousy ludicrous idea.

and clearly the use of the term "tragedy of the commons" does not apply to simple road ways, since, if we except simple wear and tear from our consideration, a road can be used indefinitely without being exhausted. Strictly speaking, a road is not a resource, unless you're a robber baron with a toll gate.

You do run on, ignoring any semblance of logic. Try putting a sock in it..

What's a "Constitutional Libertarian"?

I honor our constitution and see it as a very libertarian document in its principles.

Is that same bastard socialist dodge like the term "fiscal conservative"?

Some 10ton bastards apparently think so..

[Scenic Sounds]

Great column, Gary.

Sometimes, the real world just doesn't fit well into the philosophical boxes that we create. I guess that's how philosophies get tested (at least temporarily).

Chaos and terrorism is just not a friendly environment for personal liberty, I'm afraid. And I wish I could say that I think things will be getting better, but the fact is that technological advances make it possible for disaffected individuals, groups or countries to cause ever-increasing damage to the rest of us. Our response to those threats will not likely be to expand personal liberties.

We may find out that the "war on terrorism" is going to be a permanent feature of life in the 21st century.

[gcruse]

Sometimes, the real world just doesn't fit well into the philosophical boxes that we create. I guess that's how philosophies get tested (at least temporarily).

That's a good point.  By our insistent and ongoing trivializing of the Tenth Amendment,
the ability of the states to be test labs for different philosophies is dead on arrival.
Anything serious enough to warrant trying is seen as radical enough to trigger the Ashcrofts
of the day to send in the troops.  We're killing political innovation.  For pete's sake, look
at all the caterwauling over introducing color into our currency.  Self-destruction
is easy, change is hard.

[Scenic Sounds]

By our insistent and ongoing trivializing of the Tenth Amendment, the ability of the states to be test labs for different philosophies is dead on arrival.

That's clearly true. We all watch and are influenced by the same national media. We even seem to be losing our regional accents.

What factors do you think account for this trend toward national uniformity?

[gcruse]

I think national media is a part of the uniformity. The network news readers are trained to produce a midwest America accent. There are not many regional dialects anymore on national broadcasts. The last one had a real down home drawl. I can't remember who it was. Roger Mudd? Garrick Utley? No, no, no.

But the destruction of state prerogatives seems to have begun immediately following the Civil War and became an instrument of federal policy with FDR. It gets worse every administration, and right now it is awful.

[Scenic Sounds]

But the destruction of state prerogatives seems to have begun immediately following the Civil War and became an instrument of federal policy with FDR.

There's no question about that. Do you think that improvements in communications, transportation, etc. have facilitated that tendency toward national political uniformity for the same reasons that those improvements have facilitated national uniformity in our economy?

[Snuffington]

Sure, starting a third party is tough. The GOP was the last successful third party in this country's history. But it's really toughest when the third party's natural constituents pretend that another party is better serving their interests, when it's not.

The problem with your analysis is that you look to "the Republicans" as some sort of unified block, preventing your own pure constituency. In fact, the Republican Party is a loose alliance of squabbling factions, most of which feel the same way you do, and wish all the other "pretenders" would go away.

Those factions who recognize this situation for what it is can effectively pursue their agenda within the party structure. It is difficult, for sure. But, as I mentioned earlier, far more often achieved than forming new parties to attempt the same ends. Those who seek a pure and unified party, mistaking natural party disagreement and competing agendas for a flaw in the party itself, are endlessly disappointed.

The unfortunate aside is the effect of seeing bright and dedicated people waste their energy building marginal new parties at the expense of the issues they wish pursued. I see this pattern repeating itseld again.

[gcruse]

That's all part of it. The interstate highway system really stitched things together. Do you think the internet has a hand in it?

[tpaine]

"the ability of the states to be test labs for different philosophies is dead on arrival"
-gcruse -


The citizens of states are guaranteed a republican form of government, under our constitutional BOR's, not "test labs for different philosophys".
I see no "insistent and ongoing trivializing of the Tenth Amendment".

Granted, I do see states abandoning their powers to the feds. But any state still has the power, imo, to tell the feds to shove their unconstitutional congressional 'acts'..
They just lack the political will to do so.

[Scenic Sounds]

Probably. I don't really know, but I suspect that our increasing disuse of states as political laboratories (i.e., our tendency toward political uniformity) involves more than simply the desire on the part of certain national politicians to grab more power for the national government. You know, I haven't seen much in the way of a pendulum aspect to this in the sense of periods of time in which it became fashionable to decrease the influence of our national government in favor of the states. So, I wonder how much of this is sort of an inevitable product of events extrinsic to the politics involved.

It's an interesting question, I think.

[gcruse]

There was a time not long ago when the federal government was getting away from unfunded mandates, instead providing block grants to the states. Pendulum-wise, that's the only wavering I can think of.

Of course, this all begs the question, "why does Washington act as the tax collector for the states?" You can be sure they don't do it for free. And, as is the norm, with fed funds come federal strings. We allow DC to strap the state down so the state will get back some of the money it sent to DC in the first place.

Increasing federalism is a ratchet, I think.

[Scenic Sounds]

Increasing federalism is a ratchet, I think.

I agree. And that's a beautiful metaphor.

I gotta run - great column. Thanks for the exchange and keep up the good work!

[gcruse]

Thanks, SS. See you soon.

[general_re]

Let common sense temper your silly fantacies about private property.

Well said.

[Protagoras]

I knows my limitations. :^)

Not. You seem to be limited by a personality disorder. Not to mention faulty data and logic.

[tpaine]

But as usual, not well recieved..

OWK has become so dogmatic that he seems unable to argue the weak points in his doctrine..
-- Sad.
At one point he was a contender.

[general_re]

Personally, I am of the opinion that while the state could easily stand to be radically smaller than it is now, wishing for the total elimination of it is pure pipe-dreaming - there are a few things that the state can do better than private individuals, and should do by virtue of that fact. Total elimination of the state is neither necessary or desirable to achieve a freer society than what we have now. By way of an example, nobody - well, almost nobody - takes the proposition that national defense should be handed over to private concerns seriously, because the idea is ridiculous on it's face. Despite how utterly self-marginalizing such a proposition is, it continues to be advanced in some quarters for some reason...

[tpaine]

Agreed. 'Elimination' of the state is lunacy.
There is absolutly nothing wrong with our constitution, imo. It simply isn't followed.
If just one state were to ~insist~ in federal courts that the constitution be strictly followed, and its people used every civil disobedience method known, -- the whole federal charade would collapse.
- It is encouraging indeed to see states like Alaska refusing to enforce the 'patriot' act.

Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/917218/posts

[LittleJoe]

Teddy Roosevelt was NOT elected as a Bull Moose. Woodrow Wilson won that election,1912. Teddy was only elected President as a Republican.

The Bull Moose party was the popular name for the U.S. Progressive Party that Theodore Roosevelt organized for his 1912 presidential campaign. After being denied the REPUBLICAN nomination that year, Roosevelt ran on his own third-party ticket.

The Federalists were elitists who scorned democracy. They wanted a strong federal government with no states rights. They were against universal suffrage and in 1787 tried to have the Constitution re written to put an end to the right to vote and give absolute power to the federal government.

They gave us the infamous Sedition Act. Under the Sedition Act, the rights of American citizens were curtailed by prohibiting assembly "with intent to oppose any measure ... of the government" and made it illegal for any person to "print, utter, or publish ... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government.

They met their end with the War of 1812 when they sided with the British. The New England Federalists sold supplies to British troops in Canada and British ships offshore while we were at war with England.

Jefferson did not "suck up" to France. He repaid them for the help they gave us in the revolution.
Jefferson's power base was the southern and western states. The Federalists power base was New England. By todays standards, Jefferson was a very Conservative Republican.

Jefferson was a liar, a schemer and a manipulative demagogue apparently you have bought in to some of his bilge.

Yes, I bought into his Constitution hook, line and sinker. I like to vote, and I like free speech. Under the Federalist system only the elite lawgivers have the right to vote and I can be put in prison for calling the Emperor an idiot!

Who's history is askew now, Grasshopper? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!