In the last several weeks, many of the blogs that I’ve visited (including ours) have been enmeshed in the ongoing debate over how to vote in the coming elections. The hard-cores of the group advise that we adopt what I’ll call Plan A and vote a straight Democrat ticket in order to throw the Republicans from power. The objective of this being that an out-of-power Republican party will abandon the neo-cons and religious conservatives and embrace pure libertarian bliss. Not likely, IMHO, but what are you gonna say to these guys? Plan B is to vote a mixed ticket, with the idea of electing a divided government (D’s controlling one chamber and R’s the other [with theories on which one Senate or the House varying from blog to blog]). Also a neat idea, but with no consensus on whether to vote for R’s for the House or Senate, I see this as self-defeating. Plan C (and probably the one I favor) involves angry libertarians actually voting for Libertarians. I know that L’s aren’t likely to win many elections, but if you really are angry at the R’s for “betraying liberty” and want to punish them, voting for D’s is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Vote for actual Libertarian candidates. You know where they stand on issues. Plan D has been embraced by more than a few people, and although I sympathize with it, I find that it too resembles cutting off the old nose. This involves simply refusing to vote. Plan D being the unconsciously favored plan of more than 50% of Americans (in mid-term elections anyway), I daresay that it will enjoy the largest degree of participation.
Having broken down the plans, I would now like to discuss the outcome of a newly minted, Democrat majority government (enjoying leadership of the House and Senate). Although this story is old, I wasn’t familiar with it, so (at least according to NBC), it’s “new to you [me].” I think that we all know that the next Speaker will be Nancy Pelosi and her right hand man will be Steny Hoyer. We all know that the next Senate majority leader will be “Dusty” Harry Reid. That much isn’t really something that makes me wake up in cold sweats at night (how can you take anybody named “Dusty” or Steny seriously?). What does cause me palpitations is the idea of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the largest Democrat Caucus, btw) coming to power. It’s 62 members, lead by Lynn Woolsey, are socialists. Plain and simple. Let’s not pander about being “progressives” here. Progressive is merely a code-word for socialist. Don’t believe me? Take a look at how the members actually identify themselves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Caucus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders (the only one who has the guts to openly call himself a socialist), http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html (to whom many, but not all of the 62 belong to), and their ideas for a “better America” http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html#strat.
Now I mentioned an old story above which I’m now going to bring in to this post to demonstrate that some of the 62 and a few other hangers-on are extreme border-line Marxist/Communists. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/599jmdsy.asp and http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/14/130422.php for the details of the story. Notable is that this is a bill which was debated and passed during the incumbency of the current Congress. This isn’t something which can be blamed on the Democrats of the past. Notice that this isn’t a call to action; no funds or military resources. This is simply an “I am against Fidel,” kind of bill. Notice the names of the 20 D’s who voted against this. Only three (Charlie Rangel, Edolphus Towns, and Gregory Meeks) are not members of the Progressive Caucus. These are the kinds of people who wake me up in a cold sweat at night. They are all going to come to power if Democrats take Congress come November. As members of the largest Democrat caucus, I think that it is eminently reasonable to suggest that they wield a fair amount of power within the Democratic party.
I certainly admit that there is little to recommend the RINO’s currently in office for re-election. I won’t insult your intelligence, gentle readers, by attempting to defend their actions. What I will say is this : when you have an opportunity to cast your vote for the next Congress, swallow the bile that rises in your throat, look clearly up and down the list of candidates, and if you cannot bring yourself to vote for the R on the list, at least vote for the one with either the I or the L next to his or her name. Voting for the D, guarantees at least two years of socialists and marxist/communists having a hand in running our government. If you have anything resembling pretensions toward libertarianism, the idea of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in power should jolt you into action. When it comes to punishing R’s by voting D, just say no.
As mentioned earlier, Plan D is the only one available to me since there only R’s, D’s and Greens running in my district. However, I would definitely encourage people to vote for Libertarians as the best of the bad choices. Generally they are much friendlier to those who are liberty-minded.
Sorry, Michael. I did read your piece on not voting this go-around. I whole-heartedly sympathize with you and others in your predicament who do not have an I or L candidate in their district. We can only hope that the LP develops a stronger grassroots effort for future elections.
Omar you write:
I’m voting straight Ds, and I’m not concerned that this will entail Marxists having a hand in running our government. Very, very few Democrats are actually Marxists. I note that in support of your contrary belief you link to a Weekly Standard article decrying that some 22 Dems did not vote for the bill supporting the Civil Society in Cuba movement. Of course, that same article notes:
I am not at all familiar with the contents of this bill, and a rather extensive amount of googling did not yield any commentary from Mr. Paul explaining his vote; clearly, however, if Paul voted “no” there are reasons to do so other than being in thralldom to Karl Marx. Obviously, LP types, for whom you propose to vote, might well vote the same as Paul on that sort of bill, for whatever non-Communist reasons Paul’s were.
In any event, George Bush has veto power. If a slim majority of Dems in one or both houses of Congress really could foist a Stalinist Five Year Plan on the nation, George can make that go away in one swipe of his pen. But the real threat Dems represent to Bush and the GOP are in the areas where it should be threatened.
I look forward to a Speaker Pelosi armed with subpoenas. I want to get to the bottom of George Bush’s notions that he is literally entitled to violate any law he likes, and I want an opposition party empowered to turn over rocks and discover exactly how the Bush Admin has been operating per that theory. Only a House and Senate in Dem control can deter this growing Executive tyranny, and for that reason, as well as the virtues of gridlock, I am voting straight Democrat.
Ah, Mona has arrived.
Someday the “more libertarian than thou” contingent which actually voted for Bush might come up with a reason those of us who never did should hate him and fear him so much, but instead we will still be treated to this nonsense. I suspect some people never understood the real reason why most of us didn’t vote for him before or refuse to vote Democrat now, because they have no real sense of what our liberty is really composed of. Therefore, in order to stop limited programs they want to hand over power to people who want an unlimited right to invade our privacy without warrants. That is right, the entire regulatory program of the Democratic party is based on it being a crime to not turn over the evidence they otherwise would have to get a warrant to search for. Lack of cooperation is also probable cause to get a warrant. That is the bureaucratic program your new found friends want to expand even more than now exists or the Republicans wish to do. We should all feel safer with the Dem’s in power because they will enforce FISA while massively expanding the civil and criminal reach of the “no warrant required” component of the states powers. Glad to know.
We will not get the real explanation of why they voted for Bush yet are in terrified fear of him now, rather than fear of everything he and the Democrats really stand for, because instead we will get things like this:
People who don’t know you Mona might think you are being hyperbolic. I assure all who read this silliness that she means this literally.
Lance writes:
My argument has never been that those of you who did not vote for him should hate and fear him because I, who did vote for him, purportedly do. I do not hate Bush; I do fear his claims to untrammeled Executive power. And Lance, it is not just FISA — only recently he told Congress he won’t let it, by a law it just passed, set reasonable professional requirements to head FEMA to avoid another Michael Brown debacle. He has always — always — maintained, per the very extreme legal theories of John Yoo that he may ignore hundreds o laws, and has been deterred only on those few occasions when his lawlessness was able to reach the SCOTUS.
Look, Lance, you are a libertarian. Do you really see no reason for great alarm when one branch of government insists it has total authority to violate the law in secret, and has been doing so? Violating FISA is only one of the symptoms — tho a serious one — of this bizarre notion of Executive power that Bush has implemented. It would not matter who the President was, or from which party he hailed, any libertarian should be entirely freaked out by a literal claim to be entitled to break the law in hundreds of areas. If that isn’t rule of man and not of law, then what is?
And since Republicans — even those in Congress who initially pronounce objections — have always caved in and quashed investigations and/or legislated the right to torture or suspend the writ of habeas corpus, what option is there to put an end to this, and restore the rule of law, other than to have an opposition party placed in the majority in Congress? Seriously, what other option is there?
And as I’ve noted before, it does not convince me that you are neutral wrt Dems and the GOP simply because you did not vote for Bush. I didn’t vote in the 90s, but I strongly tilted toward Republican positions and pundits. That has been the history of most libertarians. And just as I once was, you and others are far more hostile to severe denunciation of Republican sins than of Democratic ones. Even tho (and when) you/I did not vote for Republicans.
The Bush/Frist GOP has ended the long libertarian tolerance for and alignment with (at least psychologically if not in the voting booth) the GOP; we are jumping ship all over, even if not singing paeans to Democrats (very few of us are). There are reasons that is happening, and those same reasons are why so many of us advocate the only meaningful way of stopping what the statist, authoritarian, lawless GOP has been doing — vote for Democrats.
I
Ron Paul votes “no” on virtually everything regardless of whether it impacts libertarian positions or not. He votes against giving Congressional Gold Medals and Presidential Medals of freedom to deserving individuals because it costs money. Ron, although a seemingly wonderful guy and a person I often agree with, sometimes wanders off the reservation in the name of pure silliness. As the article points out, this is probably just one of his automatic “no” votes.
I’m not really that concerned about Ron Paul’s vote here, but rather the main issue which is that a significant portion of the largest Democrat Congressional Caucus refused to vote for a bill which essentially boiled down to a condemnation of Fidel Castro’s police state. That’s it. No use of money, force, cover ops, etc. Simply a “I don’t like Fidel” bill. That 20 leading Democrats felt that they couldn’t condemn the Communist police state that is Cuba scares the hell out of me. For all the wrangling about “only a few Democrats are really Marxists,” the evidence indicates otherwise. Also, have a look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ membership roll. Compare it to the membership roll of the Democratic Socialist USA. A lot of the same names pop up on both lists. Why on earth would you ever support a party whose largest voting bloc is open socialist?
Putting aside the rampany, but highly specific potential abuses of power by the current administration (that I’m no fan of), do you not see a greater threat from declared progressive socialists (and for the life of me I still cannot understand the difference between a socialist and a marxist/communist [and neither, apparently can they, see Second SI and later SI's])? I agree that there isn’t much of a choice here : a paternalistic, authoritarian conservative or revolutionary “kill the capitalists” socialists. Given that, I support the candidacy of any Libertarian or Independent (non-Green, non-Socialist) who chooses to run against the Establishment. What other choice do we really have? Other than just not voting.
That is a whole lot ink to decline to take back the idea that Bush believes he literally has the right to violate any law he likes. I stand by my comment that it is silly and people who put forth such nonsense are not debating in good faith or they are irrelevant to any reasoned discussion or debate.
As for your complaints, I do find, to the extent that it is true, it troubling that this administration does much of what it does. I also find it ridiculous that vastly more common abuses of the same type that you are talking about are to be tolerated, no expanded, because well, I have been given no reason. I must assume because they are a long standing growing issue that we have come to tolerate their expansion, while newer ones ( though they really are not and each abuse occurred to a greater or lessor extent under the previous administration, I guess newer to some segments of the libertarian punditry)are to be cited as proof of the arrival of a rogue police state. If it is now, it was before.
Meanwhile we are treated by the people you wish to get our support with not only a wish to do more of the “no warrant required” assault on our liberties than ever, but pine away about looking more like Europe. That just blows me away that you don’t get the implication of that given that Europe on almost every issue you cite is vastly worse than anything Bush has ever asked to do, much less actually does. It is no accident that Clinton justified his grabs for more power to combat crime and terrorists on the European model. We can debate whose vision on that front was worse, Bush’s or Clinton’s, but it is one of an astonishingly small degree and that was without Clinton having 9/11 as a pretext.
As for violating the law, I suggest this, go to the relevant archives and search for every decision handed down just by the Supreme Court and find all the cases where the Clinton administration or our Congress had a policy or law struck down. You will find by your definition that they were all pretty damn lawless if we use your definition of lawless.
You seem to have trouble understanding my argument. It is not that voting for Democrats is a big problem for me, it manifestly is not. Go ahead and do so. This administration deserves to lose a compliant congress. You can even justify it on the issues you list, there is no reason you have to weigh all the various abuses by the same amounts I do. What I cannot stand from you or your rhetorical soul mates is the dishonesty or delusion, you can let me know which, of statements like the one above. I also have little or no tolerance anymore for people who throw out condemnations from a “libertarian” perspective when they want to put in power people who are on a few issues arguably (and I don’t buy it, I think they would be worse overall if they had had the reins of power after 9/11) somewhat better, a few just as bad and on many others much worse. That is the choice we are given and it hardly deserves the moral preening of yourself or others. None of it justifies the kind of dishonest misrepresentations that you, Greenwald and others engage in on a regular basis.
As for my neutrality wrt Republicans or Democrats, who ever said I was? Not me. Though it has nothing to do with the R or D. It has to do with specific policies. As for severe denunciations, most of mine have been towards the rhetoric of certain libertarians, not Democrats. If I hear a libertarian blogger claim that Harry Reid desires the death of millions in the Middle East and that is why he wishes to draw down forces in Iraq I’ll be sure to alert you to my indignant fisking. So far I haven’t faced much of that kind of ridiculous rhetoric in the corners of the blogosphere that I comment and post on. If McQ, Jon, Dale, Josh, Pejman, Peter Jackson, Glenn Reynolds, Eric at Classical Values, D.A. Ridgely, Wulf, Xrlq, Dan McLaughlin, Captain Ed, Oxblog, or any of the people I read on a regular basis throws out something as silly as that over and over then they’ll get it with both barrels. So far few have left me with the urge to do that kind of thing. I certainly have debated with McQ and the boys often enough, but it is never because they are throwing out some claim of genocide or oncoming fascism, or the other kind of stuff you specialize in. Listening to that crap I am reminded of the Clinton obsessed who were sure we were about to be taken over by the Chinese as opposed to Clinton just couldn’t follow the law.
There is no doubt however, that generally I am more critical of Democrats than Republicans. I agree with Republicans more often. In fact, my main anger at Republicans is that the party has not done what they say they would on issues where I agree with them. The Democrats I rarely agree with, but they suffer the same criticism on, for example, gay rights. I don’t spend much time attacking them for their spending because that is what they are about. Where relevant however, it is important, the Democrats are staggeringly worse in that area. In fact, this weekend I did a bit of research to see just how big a difference there was and it surprised me. The size of the difference in spending votes between Republicans and Democrats was simply mind blowing. I had almost bought into the notion that Republicans were almost as bad, but it isn’t true. It is not even close.
So yeah, I expect over the years my commentary will not weigh in the Democrats favor. I won’t however do to them the kind of vile stuff you pull.
Omar, are you really sure Paul voted against that legislation for no good reason? Do you have a link to the full bill (I could not find one), and not just to The Weekly Standard’s claim that it is a vote to say “yes” to Communist Castro?
Look, I agree that there are a small number of Castro aficionados in Congress, reflecting some of those in the left-wing population at large. In fact — and this will no doubt ruffle feathers — but the last time I ran into leftist defending Castro it was in comments at Greenwald’s site, where Greenwald was vehemently leading the charge in telling these idjits they had no business criticizing Bush if they were defending the putrid Castro regime. (I keep trying to tell people he is a libertarian, but no one believes me.)
But except in academia, this Castro-loving cohort has no cachet. Including among the vast majority of Democrats. Howard Dean, while Governor, earned a “B” from Cato for his fiscal policies. Dean was a Gulf War I hawk. The current crop of Dem candidates, with exceptions like Lamont, would tend to pull the Dems right. It just is WRONG to abhor Democrats per se based on a fear of Marxism/socialism. The vast, majority just are not that. John Tester is not Marxist.
Lance writes:
This is a habit of yours, claiming I am back-pedaling when I most certainly am not. More importantly, George Bush believes he has the right to violate any law he likes. Period. Full stop. Read “Mona’s blog” at Inactivist for the documentation. Especially see my update in the “Neoconstitution” post. I understand why you find it hard to believe, but it is true.
Oh, and Lance about this:
I defy you to show where I have ever claimed a coming genocide or fascism. I have said some right-wingers advocate genocide of Muslims. And they do. But I have never claimed that the United States is poised on fascism. Ever.
How ironic, you who think I “lie” about the statements of others, so routinely do so about my own commentary.
Yes, here is the official summary http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hres193.asp
I can find nothing within either the summary text or the background that is at odds with even the broadest libertarian beliefs. It is an affirmation of the US government’s commitment to democracy in Cuba and praise for the courage of those participating in the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society in Cuba’s convention in Havana. This is not a funding or military bill. It is simply an “I don’t like Fidel” bill. Those who voted against it are actively supporting the communist police state that is Castro’s Cuba. There is no way to wrangle around this fact.
A small number? 20 Democrats and 1 Independent (an openly declared Socialist). Almost all of who belong to the largest Democrat Congressional Caucus. This is a power bloc of 62 Congresspeople who are, in effect, declared socialists/marxists/communists. The twenty or so who happened to oppose the bill in question are simply the more openly radical ones.
I, and several marxist/socialist/communist types, cannot see the difference between the three. The history of the 2nd Socialist International (and its later reorganizations) demonstrates this very clearly. Show me a similar caucus of Republicans who are openly fascist and then I’ll start sweating about them, too.
To whom exactly are you referring? As you mentioned, Lamont, who had huge amounts of support from the grassroots level of the Democratic party, is a nutty left-winger par excellence. Pete Stark another one. Or how about soon to be committee chairmen Charlie Rangel and John Conyers(assuming the D’s win)? Or heck, Lynn Woolsey or Barbara Lee. Where are these moderate, DLC’ers?
Perhaps not a doctrinnaire Marxist, but from his own site, http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues, he certainly plays quite the folk Marxist/socialist or populist Marxist/socialist. His policy positions certainly don’t appeal to those of a libertarian bent (for more funding for the anti-drug taskforces, for higher minimum wage, against privitization of SS, against free trade, leans toward universal government healthcare, for more government spending, for more farm subsidies, and for much more restrictive campaign finance laws).
Omar, I did not — and do not — claim that Jon Tester is a libertarian’s dream. Who is, that is running for office? But he is no Marxist. His web site includes:
And yes, there is this:
And you think that will not resonate even with the vast majority of hardcore conservatives? Health care is a serious problem, you know.
And then there is this:
He doesn’t believe in “freedom first” given his drug policy. But almost no Republican is better. It is a draw.; most GOP are worse.
As for this:
No, what you have is a mere 21 people. Not a bloc, and no power. 21 people. This is not a Marxists-are-upon-us moment when there are only 21 — this country has had far more actual Marxists in Congress and the govt before. Harry Truman (D) among other Dems, put them in their place. I simply do not get your thinking that Marxists are the problem of the moment.
I believe it, it just has no bearing on his honesty, scruples or reasoning power. Libertarians are as silly and conspiratorial as well as ill disposed to evidence as any other group. So pointing out his libertarianism gives him no special cachet.
Uh, no. In the past I have pointed out you say things which would be back pedaling if you actually had the ability to see that one thing you are saying conflicts with another thing you are saying. In this case you need (as I often point out) to actually read what someone is saying before you form your opinion. Read this comment again. I’ll emphasize the relevant word.
I am hoping I don’t have to break it down word by word for you, but I will if necessary. When you improve your reading comprehension try again.
As for the rest of your comment, I appreciate you confirming for our readership that you are a full fledged sufferer from BDS.
This is what I would write for someone who was generous enough in reading to acknowledge they understood what people were really saying. “The amazing thing is that you cannot read your own comment for comprehension. You defy that you have made a claim of genocide and then claim you have made such a claim about people.” However, given that you have a low reading comprehension ability or are purposely deceptive and tendentious or just unable to reason I will accept that maybe I should be clearer, though I am pretty sure you know exactly what I am saying having said it so many times before. So I will rewrite:
Now it is perfectly and unambiguously accurate. You have falsely claimed Walter Williams and numerous others wish for genocide or at minimum rivers of blood because they are filled with bloodlust. You have also claimed right here that George Bush belives he can violate any law he wishes, which would make him a dictator. I guess one could quibble with whether that is fascism, but you have claimed he sees himself as above all laws and a Prince. Now Princes and Kings were rarely (I would argue never, but you might find a counterexample somewhere) above all laws, that has usually been reserved only for the totalitarians, and even then only some of them. So I certainly feel the oncoming fascism remark is appropo, given you are claiming he believes he has powers above all but a handful of men have ever claimed, if that. If the term fascism were to be deemed inappropriate it would be because fascism is too weak before such an expansive claim.
As for any other lie, I defy you to come up with one. I will admit to mistakes, but I see none so far in your case, or your friend the Sock Puppet.
What a joke. A slippery response to my comment there as well. First you imply that Reynolds holds to Yoo’s theories and then you claim he hasn’t condemned them enough, though he has stated his position many times in addition to the post you cite, just not in referencing Yoo. The rest of your comment is nonresponsive as well. Assertion minus any evidence or reasoning plus pretending you answer me without actually facing my critique that Reynolds wasn’t discussing what you claimed he was. Par for the course.
Your update is similarly pathetic as it in no way supports the idea that you leave out there that Reynolds supports Mansfield’s reading of the Constitution.
Nor does Mansfield support anything as radical as you are claiming he is. In fact Mansfield is arguing for powers we have traditionally given our executive in wartime. I have no problem with you arguing that Mansfield’s reading is not desireable, or that it is not how we should read the Constitution. I do have a problem with you exaggerating what he is saying or acting as if it is some novel, radical theory. It is far less radical than what both Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt did and argued they should be able to do. In Roosevelt’s case he didn’t even wait until wartime.
You can continue to advance the argument you are making, but I’ll still call it either delusional, ignorant of history or dishonest. If you like I’ll let you decide which.
Yes, and given that he isn’t running in New York, Massachusetts or California, that is an eminently populist position (though I admit, not inherently Marxist or Socialist).
Ah, more government regulation of the healthcare industry. Sounds like Hilary-care may be the feast being offered by Mr. Tester. If that is the case, then I decline to dine.
Ok, so you admit a draw here. Not a Democratic champion of civil liberties.
No, no, this isn’t just 21 people. These are the most openly declared Marxist/Socialist members of the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus which is made up of 62 members. Again, need I remind you that this is the largest Democrat Caucus in Congress. These aren’t centrist or center-left DLC’ers here. These are the hardcore leftists. And let’s be honest, even if we are only talking about 21 Congresspeople, that’s a mighty scary number of open Marxists running amok in the highest legislative body of our government. If we were to have 21 fairly openly declared fascists, I suggest your reaction would be different.
Absolutely true. That was 60 years ago, however, and in the age where Americans recognized the threat of Marxism. Today, it’s almost considered populism. I do recognize that there are centrist Democrats committed to retaking their party from the hard lefters and I wish only the best for them. Peter Beinart proposed the same kind of thing that Truman accomplished in the 40′s-50′s and I believe that it was well received (if I remember correctly, it was in an ’05 or perhaps ’04 issue of The New Republic; I’ve gotten in the bad habit of tossing them after reading them so I cannot locate the exact issue). I hope for all of us that the DLC (as much as I dislike the Clintonistas on a personal level) takes back its party from the radicals, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that the base is demanding. They want more of the hard-left, Russ Feingold/Howard Dean/Jon Conyers approach. Which is fine for them if they want their party to drive off a cliff, but in the meantime what happens to the rest of us while they are in charge of our government(via electoral victory in November)?
I’m surprised to find that Mona didn’t worship Dr. Paul. I guess he doesn’t rise to the level of Messieurs Soros and Greenwald. He did, afterall, only run once as the LP candidate for president. More’s the pity.
As a constituent(soon to be former, sadly) of his I can attest to the fact that Paul’s customary vote is ‘no’ on every bill. The ‘yes’ votes are the ones to which you know he paid attention. He is a curmudgeon but he has his moments. Like back in the ’90s during a Humphrey-Hawkins hearing with Greenspan where he got the normally closed-lipped, parse-happy FedSec to admit flat out that all the M-measures of money were wildly inaccurate to the point of utter uselessness. You’d be surprised how many people couldn’t have cared less at the time. I still can’t help but bring it up whenever possible. I need help.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Free Speech/Grassroots Lobbying Under Threat