Doug Murray: Politics

Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:07:57 GMT

Diplomatic War Preparations

Oceanguy is right when he says we need to get ready for war to make the diplomacy work.

Saddam and his ilk will only only listen to the diplomats if we convince them twe intend to fight. The only way to do that is to intend to. Fake sincerety won't work.

Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:39:02 GMT

Tricky Trickle

When it is suggested that tax cuts go to the people who actually pay taxes and are therefore wealthy enought to use that money to create more jobs, the deriders yell "Trickle-down!" They want the cuts to go to those who pay no taxes.

They argue that the poor will then spend the money which will bring about new jobs by giving companies more money to create them (as tax cuts for taxpayers would do directly).

In other words, trickle-down is baloney but trickle-up makes sense.

Thomas Sowell says there is no trickle-down theory in economics. It's strictly a political thing. You don't say.

Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:17:36 GMT

Gray Davis, Libertarian

Governor Davis strikes a blow for localism by shifting some services that the state can't afford to cities and counties.

Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:01:10 GMT

Navy to leave Puerto Rico?

When the activists on Vieques get what they want, the abandonment of the Navy's bombing and artillary range, Puerto Rico may lose its biggest employer. According to this morning's Sentinel, if the Navy leaves Vieques it may not see any need to stay at Roosevelt Roads, near San Juan.

The Vieques protesters are just one more example of the hordes of activists who become fixated on their own cause and the consequences be damned.

In the 1970's, I helped bombard the Vieques beach from a destroyer out of the Roads and there was one accidental casualty. We were reservists and one sailor didn't realize that when a tin can fires its four-inch rifles, the whole ship jumps and you don't want to be resting your chin on a railing. He only needed a couple of stitches, though.

Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:54:39 GMT

Governor Blogger?

This says Jeb Bush is trying to be the first e-governor. It sounds like he's making a good start, but does he have a blog yet?

Thu, 26 Dec 2002 03:40:25 GMT

Who decides?

KQED (San Francisco public television) has a pushme/pullyu poll on airport security. Under You Decide they ask, "Should U.S. airport security use profiles that include ethnic characteristics to screen passengers?"

I clicked Yes and was asked "Are you sure?" then given four more chances to answer, with additional information accompanying each.

Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:16:20 GMT

A Murray said what about Osama?

I don't know anything else about Senator Patty Murray, but I may have to change my name.

Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:03:05 GMT

Party, party, party

Rachel Lucas and Arthur Silber think it might be time for a new political party, and I don't think it's a bad idea, either. Despite what they taught us in elementary school, there is no "two party system" in America, only a system dominated by two parties.

Of course, other parties do pop in and out of existence, usually around a particular candidate (the Bull Moose Party) or issue (the once-again-notorious Dixiecrats). Some, like Socialists and Libertarians, even have a philosophy or agenda that gives them staying power.

The two major parties stand for exactly the same thing. They stand for election. Minor parties seek office to implement their platforms while Democrats and Republicans devise platforms to win office. Usually, more principled candidates will be found in the smaller parties and demagogues will gravitate to the two majors, especially the one in control, where they actually have a chance at power. (Yes, I know there are some demagogues in small parties and there are both Democrats and Republicans who have scruples.)

With a significant third party, it's less likely that any one party would rule and principles might have a better chance of swaying the vote on specific issues. Right now could be a good time to enter the fray, since neither major party dominates Congress and a small block of representatives not tied to either of them could wield some real power.

The Republican Liberty Caucus that Hank writes about in a comment to Rachel is a good step, and I have thought at times that libertarians might have a better chance of making a difference if they work within existing parties rather than competing with them. But the risk is that Democrats and others will see it as nothing more than a faction within the party and oppose its ideas along with all things Republican. As a separate party, libertarians could offer those ideas as an alternative.

What I would really like to see, though, is to drop the Republican tag and have a Liberty Caucus, whose main task is not to elect candidates but educate voters, supporting liberty friendly views and candidates in any party. As much as we would like to blame them, the politicians are not the problem. They just do what will get them elected and as long as voters expect them to solve every little problem, they will be glad to accept the responsibility and the power that goes with it. Only when voters occasionally say, "We don't want you to do this for us," will they even consider relinquishing any control. To paraphrase a well known saying, if you have politician by the constituents, his heart and mind will follow.

In recent years there have been some encouraging signs that voters may be better informed. For most of my life, the media have covered politics much like sports, primaries treated as playoffs leading up to the championship in November. We had in depth reporting on campaign strategies, polls and whether a candidate can spell potato, but, except for an endorsement editorial shortly before the election, there was little to help anyone decide whom to vote for. In 2000, and even more so in 2002, the media seemed to provide more useful information about issues and candidates and more fact checking of claims in ads and speeches. Add to that the unimpeded coverage and commentary of bloggers, which did have an effect, and real information was available.

Rachel, Arthur, and the rest of us need to keep blogging, reading, talking, whatever it takes to spread ideas. Then, if we can't make a difference within the existing system, maybe start an Anti-Idiotarian Party and see how donkeys and elephants do against rottweilers.

Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:44:52 GMT

Lott doing the right thing, Republicans aren't

Trent Lott is not resigning his Senate Majority Leader post (at least not yet) but Republican Senators are ignoring the opportunity he is offering them. If he stays and forces Republicans to force him out, they will be taking a clear stand against racism, something they need to be seen doing.

But they have been reluctant criticize him, much less call for his ouster, and this could hurt them in the next elections when Democrats accuse them of supporting Lott's and Thurmond's segregationist views. Not that they necessarily have such views today, but the Donks will certainly say so.

If he does step down, without Republican criticism, the silence remains and the accusations will still fly.

It is a little unfair to let a single sentence topple Mr. Lott. And for the additional "problems" that have come to light, they have all been public record for as much as forty years. If they are problems now, why weren't they a month ago?

The real problem is that in resisting the calls to step down, he is showing more backbone than at any time since he became Republican Leader. His party needs someone in the post whose idea of leadership is something stronger than meeting the opposition halfway on every issue.

Perhaps there is a coup in the making. It would make sense not to criticize the leader until it is certain that he will no longer be in a position to retaliate. Maybe someone will announce in the coming days that they have the votes to take the position from a leader who has lost their confidence by putting his own position ahead of the party's good.

We can hope.

Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:29:36 GMT

Order your clone now

Stanford has announced it plans to pursue a human embryo clone project and the Corner’s Kathryn Jean Lopez wants Congress to outlaw it. I shudder.

Human cloning is one of those many things that are going happen no matter how desirable or undesirable they may be, and banning it from legitimate investigation only makes certain that it will be done, unobserved, by less savory investigators who don’t care what is legal. Of course, funding will come from others of similar mind and they will be the ones who control the process for their own purposes.

We learned this lesson pretty well when the subject was alcohol, although the left doesn’t get it on guns nor the right on abortion and most of us haven’t figured out it also applies to drugs, prostitution and pornography.

This isn't saying the government should fund clone research. People with objections should not have to support it with their taxes. But we should allow such research to flourish visibly, with open discussion of its implications for science, ethics and economics. Prohibiting it will only eliminate the best possibilities while making a Dr. Moreau even more likely.

Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:17:51 GMT

Scientia est potentia

"Knowledge is power," says the latin on the seal of the Information Awareness Office. Yesterday, the daily quotes from Freedom's Nest contained this:

Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.- Will Durant

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 06:11:07 GMT

Let's party!

John Ray has a quiz about 20th century political parties. (Link from Vinny, who also has the goods on big money in the recent elections.)

Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:44:54 GMT

Downsizing Washington

In his Fox News commentary last Thursday, Radley Balko says Republicans are losing libertarian support, and the reason is simple:

My gripe with Bush and Republicans is not that they haven't moved quickly enough to reduce the size and scope of government, or even that they haven't moved at all. My gripe is that they've moved backward.

Sorry, Radley. That's the best you can expect.

People in Washington are there for just one reason, they want to be at the top of the power pyramid, and it doesn't matter if they are Democrat, Republican or even Libertarian. Of course, many of them truly want to be there to use that power to solve great problems, or at least they truly believe that. None can be counted upon to relinquish the ability to do great things for their nation, their constituents, their ideals, the children, sometimes even (gasp!) themselves. Whether motivated by the best of intentions or the basest, they become blind to the notion that this very power to do good or ill has become the greatest problem of all.

Much of the power Washington exercises was not taken by any force, but given up voluntarily by individuals, businesses, municipalities and states in return for perceived benefits. When the government is asked to do something, the power to control that activity goes with it and can then be used to other ends. Congress can't regulate speed limits by statute, but what state would dare give up highway funds that have been extracted from its own citizens by the Federal Government just to let people drive ten miles per hour faster? Or what university would forgo federally funded student aid to be free of Title IX requirements that could not otherwise be enforced.

Right now a group of twenty-one states is asking for federal coordination of an interstate sales tax program, mainly to provide a way to tax Internet sales. If this comes about, guess who's in control.

If a city wants to finance a transportation system, it can usually find a way to get federal funding so it doesn't have to raise taxes. Of course, every other city is also getting funding for schools or parks or streets and everybody's taxes are rising to cover the cost plus administrative costs of funnelling the money to Washington and back.

To help reverse the growth of the Federal Government, it is more important for libertarians to be active at the state and local levels to educate the public, resist government bribes (pork and other 'aid') and fight efforts to weaken constitutional limits on Federal powers. Washington is not going to downsize itself.

Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:16:38 GMT

Oh, boy! We're officially secure!

Now that we have a Homeland Security Department, I feel so much safer from terrorists.

It was funny, listening to Tom Daschle complain about all the pork in the bill, considering the bacon he has provided in the past regarding things like timber and buffalo.

One question that has bothered me since President Bush first proposed this is what is the Department of Defense for? If it's there to protect us from outsiders, can I assume HSD is to protect us from...us? All those who find this a little scary, please raise your hand. And leave your email address, social security #, day and night phone #, bank account #, employer's FEIN, your spouse's employer and the number of firearms you own (if you haven't already reported this to your physician), just in case Sec. Ridge and Adm. Poindexter need your help protecting you.

Update: Columnist Kathleen Parker and funnyguy Scott Ott weigh in.

Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:21:50 GMT

Please don't vote

Good reasons not to vote:

If you find out who is running from the guy handing out cigarettes on the bus from the home.

If you decide based on whose name is listed first.

If you decide based on whether the toss comes up heads or tails.

If you don't understand the voting equipment, there is help. If you still don't get it, you don't have chance with Amendment 1 (FL).

If you can't decide.

If you don't care.

If you're dead.

I have put a lot of time and thought into my choices and won't appreciate having them nullified by someone who doesn't care enough to do the same. Of course, if you have taken pains to be knowledgeable and prepared, even if your choices aren't the same as mine, go for it. You earned it.

Bad reasons not to vote:

If you don't know who is running or what the issues are, you haven't been paying attention. Of course your'e not reading this, either.

If you see someone of your race stopped by a cop two blocks from the poll. It probably didn't have anything to do with the election, but if it did, you need to go on and help un-elect that cop's boss.

If the lines are too long, something important must be at stake. Get in line.

Somebody called and said your party votes next Thursday. But then, if you fell for this, you're already out under #1.

If you think your vote doesn't mean anything, remember that nobody has a vote that counts more than yours, no judge, no politician, no CEO, nobody. Like the hours in a day, everybody gets the same number and chooses whether to invest them or waste them. One vote won't turn the tide, but without votes, there is no tide.