I’m a very independent thinker, but the label I most closely identify with is libertarian. I get a bit agitated at times, however, with purists who claim that only their position can reasonably be considered ‘libertarian’. I suppose you could say that I believe fundamentalists within any movement are by necessity out of touch with reality, but a specific spark is ignited when dealing with “my own”, so to speak.
Widely discussed this past week, was Rand Paul’s appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show after his defeat of Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. In what in my opinion was an attempt to derail Rand’s discussion on relevant issues by putting the focus on a topic settled half a century ago, the Civil Rights Act, Maddow asked Rand what his thoughts on the mandatory service clause of the CRA were. See for yourself:
Ultimately, Paul states that he saw the need for the legislation overall, amidst stating multiple times how much he abhors discrimination. Frankly, I think it was naïve of him to trust her not to do exactly what she did, which was put words in his mouth at the end of the segment, and create a racial issue out of thin air. Frankly, I’m disgusted by the fact that she got away with it and am disappointed that Paul didn’t cut the conversation off, knowing what would happen. Predictably, and just as Maddow intended, given Paul’s hesitancy to give her a direct yes or no answer (likely because of how insufficient a one word answer would be and how irrelevant the questions were to any modern political discussion), Maddow’s audience utilized this segment to paint Paul as a racist – despite his philosophically consistent, reasonably libertarian response to Maddow’s inquiries, rooted in the defense of an individual’s right to association.
…. But unfortunately, this is where things get hairy.
The Republican primary for the race that will replace retiring Senator Jim Bunning is heating up in a major way. The tension between the moderate, if not liberal GOP Establishment and Outside-The-Beltway conservatives is on full display. This is an internal fight familiar to those of us who feel we have a stake in the fate of the GOP – and it’s a battle that’s been brewing intensely since George W. Bush and the Republican Congress under his leadership governed like intellectually dishonest, somewhat muted versions of the Democrats they claimed to oppose. Ever since the GOP was relegated to super-minority status in the 2008 elections, the epic battle for the intellectual heart of the Republican Party has been playing out in an intense manner – through everything from the the grassroots Tea Party movement to the polite but pointedly political battle between Senators like the conservative Jim DeMint and Establishment lackey Mitch McConnell; two men who have come to play a major role recently in this particular race.
Long before official candidacies were declared, I’ve had my eye on the Kentucky Senate race. This is largely because I’m a big fan of Rand Paul, and knew he was considering a run. I had the pleasure of meeting him on multiple occasions in 2007, and Rand was even kind enough to come to Boston to be the keynote speaker for an event I was the principal host of at Faneuil Hall. I’ve always thought that he had the talent, principles and political savvy to take the liberty movement mainstream. Turns out I was right.
Anyone who has been following the Kentucky Senate race has likely taken note of how unconventional the politics of this particular Republican primary have been. It’s no surprise, really. It’s not everyday that the Establishment is challenged by a strong, principled, liberty-minded conservative like Rand Paul; which is what makes this race a case study for those of us interested in the battle for the GOP’s heart. As we’ve seen via endorsements of Rand’s liberal opponent, former Democrat Trey Grayson, the Old Guard of the GOP is threatened; in a big way. Why else would they get involved in a primary race in Kentucky?
As I write this, a story is developing about what appears to be a thwarted attempt at setting off a car bomb in the middle of Times Square. Luckily, no one was hurt, and an NYPD bomb squad seems to have successfully diffused whatever device was in the SUV.
…. And all over my twitter feed, there are people who feel an immediate need, having no facts whatsoever regarding who did this or what their motive was, to blame Obama and his administration for their supposed incompetence when it comes to national security issues.
This type of unfounded, politicized assumption making coming from many on the right is just as unbecoming as what I saw from the left (for example, Fire Dog Lake), regarding the horrible oil rig accident that occurred on April 20th off the Gulf Coast. The unfortunate mishap killed 11 people, and dumped 200,000 gallons of oil into the ocean; and the folks at FDL seem to think it’s perfectly appropriate to use the tragedy as an excuse to throw around anti oil company rhetoric. While it’s quite possible that they have some valid points worth considering about the merits of conservation, why offshore drilling might be a bad thing, or the shady practices of companies like BP, I can’t help but find it cheap, if not insulting, to treat tragedy as a reason to push politics.
The exact same thing can be said of the claims that the right’s foreign policy hawks are making regarding Obama’s national security incompetence. While they might put forth claims worth considering about the President’s weaknesses on the issue, doing so as an immediate reaction to a bomb plot where the motive remains a mystery seems far too blindly ideological; weakening the potential strengths of any argument that could be made in favor of the hawk’s views. (Side-note: I’m also seeing tweets about MSNBC hosts speculating that the bomb plot relates to right-wing home grown terrorism; equally as inappropriate and factually weak as hawkish assumptions that it’s a Muslim jihad).
Why do so many people feel the need to both immediately and irrationally politicize disaster?
I wanted to provide you with information about the upcoming “Post Party Summit” activist training at the Fercroft Sheraton in Danvers, May 7th – 8th. The event in our area is one in a series of many being held nationwide. Local talk radio favorites Michael Graham and Todd Feinburg will be joined by conservative commentator and author S.E. Cupp as the summit’s featured speakers. Here’s what the group primarily responsible for these summits, American Majority, has to say:
Government Has Failed You.
We are in a fascinating time. One in which rising deficits, bigger government, and the threat of new taxation when there is clearly no representation threaten to divide and ruin our country. Yet, these injustices have fueled a revival of the new conservative movement. Millions of Americans are engaging in the political process for the first time, brought to protest over the injustices in government at all levels. While protests bring us together in passion, they are not a strategy for meaningful reform. Let us take the next step together.
Now Is Your Time.
The Post-Party Summits represent the beginning of the new American Revolution, one in which we organize for liberty and take back our communities from the political class. Each event is designed to maximize your time and provide you with real-world strategies and tactics that you can apply immediately. We have brought together some of the country’s best in messaging, political organizing, leadership training, new media, etc. to offer each of you the opportunity to move beyond protest to implementing freedom. Now is your time, what will you do with it?”
Note: I wrote the majority of this post last night around 2AM on my iPhone while I was in bed. Then, this afternoon I saw the following tweet from Fox News:
The concern seemed fairly obvious to me – but appeared to be lost on many conservatives, which I found disappointing.
Anyway, without further adieu – the actual post:
——————————————————————————–
My rather libertarian concerns about Arizona’s recently passed immigration bill potentially creating police state conditions aside, I have some pretty major, and I fear legitimate, concerns about the bill’s national political implications on both the federal amnesty agenda and the conservative 10th amendment movement.
A lot of conservatives are excited about this bill – and on the surface I can understand why; the claim is that finally, the problem of illegal immigration will be curbed in Arizona, because the laws will actually be enforced. (Sidenote: Endless enforcement of bad laws that don’t address the actual issue won’t help a thing. The root of the problem is the language in the 14th amendment that creates the incentive to have “anchor babies”- but that’s an entirely different discussion).
While I agree that illegal immigration is a problem and that laws, insofar as they exist, should be enforced (or changed), I don’t think it’s worth creating a police state that has the potential to result in more lawsuits than meaningful deportations – or arrests; (in which case don’t bother; they should be sent back to their home country, not be allowed to live off US taxpayer’s money). I fear that conservatives; desperate for any perceived “crackdown” on illegals, are willing to support any measure that claims to do so without thinking through the logical (or for that matter, political) implications of the policy.
…. But, like I said, the political implications are what I want to discuss, and I believe they are twofold: Read the rest of this entry »
Honestly, after thinking it over, I don’t quite feel the sense of loss I thought I would. I’m actually excited about the fact that states are attempting to assert their rights (see Malkin’s article) . The honest truth, as much as my partisan GOP cheerleader friends don’t want to admit it, is that we’ve been on a slippery slope headed toward socialism anyway, and would’ve gotten there fully eventually – and faster than anyone wanted to admit we would have if McCain were President. Truth be told, we’ve needed something this radical to wake us up. I’d rather this pass and engage in an epic battle over state sovereignty and constitutional limits on government than to let the Republic devolve slowly into a totalitarian cesspool – which is the path we were headed down with a GOP that consistently voted to expand entitlements and engage in deficit spending.
At least now we’re engaged in a serious and active battle over what the true role of government is. Furthermore, it looks like the GOP won’t be able to get away with NOT fighting to repeal this. Even Bailout Boehner had more balls on the House floor tonight than I ever expected; and with an engaged electorate to hold his feet to the fire, maybe we can actually fight for a repeal. I won’t hold my breath – but hell, this kind of resistance is more promising than feeling helplessly subjected to the creeping socialism that’s been permeating our nation as a result of lackluster opposition to slow but steady increases in government.
Has this radicalism truly awakened a sleeping giant? Can we reverse the trend?
For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform – even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000.
Jonathan Gruber’s work has been cited by the White House, Members of Congress, and countless media outlets, but not once did the Obama Administration disclose it was paying him more than $780,000 in tax dollars. This is a huge ethical violation that undermines the entirety of health care reform.
Sign our petition to President Obama: come clean on Jonathan Gruber and anyone else receiving public money to push health care reform.
http://action.firedoglake.com/gruber
Take action, my friends. Any enemy of the corrupt is our friend. When it comes to calling out the frauds, we must band together, regardless of ideology. It’s clear that Obama is a tyrant, even to the “progressives” who invested so much faith in him.
Here is what I wrote:
I am actually a libertarian, and disagree with what the majority of Fire Dog Lake espouses. However, when people of good conscience see corruption, regardless of their ideology, they need to come together and put a stop to it. You, President Obama, are clearly corrupt. Frankly, I feel bad for the people who call themselves progressives and put faith in you. You and all of the Democrats are a joke. True liberals and progressives should be just as mad at you as true libertarians and conservatives are at the Republicans. All the members of the DC political class don’t have the interests of the people in mind. It’s a huge joke when Democrats claim to be against insurance companies and big pharma. Give me a break – you are playing right into their hands.
I, like many of my other fellow policy wonks, have been following the procedural aspects of this health care debate for quite some time now. The days following the recent 1 AM cloture vote, however, have been the most intense.
After a great deal of analysis yesterday, and some discussions with Red State’s Erick Erickson – the only person I know who follows all of this more than I do, I’ve decided that our literal last hope is to make sure Bart Stupak’s (D-Michigan) bark is as big as his bite. Now, of course, I’m not necessarily thinking that it WILL be (Ben Nelson showed us that most politicians have their price), but it’s a small ray of hope, and the area we need to focus our attention on.
Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I have libertarian sentiments, and think voting based on social issues when it comes to federal policy is a bad idea, because it’s, A: not the federal government’s business and should be dealt with on as local of a level as possible, and B: completely pales in comparison to economic issues in my humble opinion.
However, that always fun debate aside, at this point, from a procedural perspective, the abortion issue happens to be the best possible saving grace for those looking to defeat this piece of tyrannical legislation. Luckily, it’s not a futile aspect of the abortion debate either – the point at issue is whether abortion should be funded by the federal government, which, quite predictably, I happen to be very much against.
So without further adieu, here’s the situation we’re in:
Can you actually believe that this language is part of the health care bill? Every American, regardless of their ideology, should be horrified:
“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection”
Say goodbye to our Constitutional Republic, folks. This is an action that King George III would be proud of. Harry Reid, and anyone supporting this bill, including Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins, who, in choosing to end debate at points are complicit (and Snowe especially for voting it out of committee). Then, of course, we have to include the President of the United States in the list too. Each and every one of them are elitist, authoritarian and anti-American.
Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP also have blood on their hands for refusing to put out all the stops in fighting this. I could go on, but Erick Erickson of Red State does a superb job of explaining how McConnell and Alexander screwed the American people by rolling over and allowing this, for fear of being degraded by their Establishment buddies in the Beltway.
Regardless of any feelings I may have on the issue substantively, from a purely political standpoint, I sort of love watching President Obama escalate wars. Remember in 2007 during the primaries when the MoveOn.org folks were shaking with pleasure over the thought of The One? Conservatives (from the anti-war contingent up through neoconservatives) can’t stand the President for their own respective reasons. Now, he’s alienating his base even further, while, for a host of other reasons, still managing to piss everyone else off. Why bring terrorists to New York City and try them in our courts with American constitutional rights while simaltaneously escalating foreign wars that you PROMISED as a candidate you’d end immediately upon being elected?
The major contradictions will end in EVERYONE disliking him – which is why, even if it’s all a bit tragic, I think it’s somewhat, in an ironic and pathetic kind of way, entertaining to watch. It’s almost like some sort of old school literary classic – you know, the kind you read in English class your senior year of high school, with the charasmatic tragic hero. The man of the hour has risen to great heights, he’s in the spotlight – but is just a bit too naive; slightly too egotistical; and while he’s valiantly attempting to balance the world on his shoulders, he, in an utmost dramatic fashion, comes crashing down; his previously unsubstantiated but rhetorically appealing status of grandeur with him.
Barack Obama might just be Icarus.
I’d say that my high school English teachers would be proud of me for that analogy – but then again, they were complicit members of the Massachusetts Teacher’s Union, so I have a hard time believing they’d appreciate it from a political perspective.
The ultimate moral of the story? Go big or go home, Mr. President. Pick your principles and stand with your base. All of this indecisive, contradictory nonsense will get you nowhere. Which leads me to the question, who is Obama’s Karl Rove? I’m sure there are many people who fit the bill; David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel – and hosts of others. Frankly, however, whoever’s advising him is a moron. At least Karl had the sense to tow a specific philosophical line and stick to it. Even if one disagrees with a certain intellectual approach to a situation, you can at least respect a man who has a certain set of values and stays true to them. What Obama is currently doing reveals him for what he is – an empty political hack with a few decent rhetorical tricks up his sleeve.
I don’t know about you, but I think the honeymoon is over.