Trading One Form of Autocracy for Another

I was watching Real Time this morning, and found this segment to be particularly disturbing. What was amazing was how Wesley Clark views any criticism of Clinton in much the same way as Republicans view any criticism of the GWOT, which is to say that all such criticism is unpatriotic, traitorous, or in this case, just a Republican smear campaign.

I don't know that Clark could have done a better job proving Sully's point that Clinton is "Cheney in a pantsuit" if he had tried.

(For the record, I had already made the decision to make this post before I saw Sully's post about the exchange).

Economics and Happiness

A commenter at Tyler Cowen's indispensable Marginal Revolution asks whether thinking like an economist results increases happiness, and then answers, well, yes, of course:

1. I cherish my consumer surplus. I value most of the stuff I buy way more than
what I have to pay for them; vanilla ice cream makes me happy beyond belief, and
the same is true for the music of Dream Theater and the (soon to be purchased)
Apple iphone. And what am I asked to pay for them? Peanuts.
2. I cherish my producer surplus. I am getting paid way, way more than the salary that would make me indifferent between supplying labour and staying at home.
3. I never have regrets: I did the best I could given the information available to me at the time. Judging I could have done better using information I acquired at a
later date makes as much sense as regretting the existence of gravity. On a
related topic, I understand the irrelevance of sunk costs.
4. While I do care for my welfare in relative terms, my welfare in absolute terms looms large in my utility function - and, boy, look how its value has been growing.
5. The selfishness of my fellow human beings does not make me anxious or depressed. Adam Smith (or was it Mandeville?) taught me that humans, selfish as they are, can make happy societies. And perhaps more to the point, they can make me happy.

I, for one couldn't agree more, even if I'm not an economist (though I do have at least some background in economics, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass). At the very least, attempting to evaluate the comparative value in every action or transaction makes you appreciate things a hell of a lot more, and take a hell of a lot less for granted.

On the other hand, as some of the commenters to Cowen's post point out, the fact that there are people who don't act and think like economists can be extraordinarily frustrating- but it's more the fact that you see people acting irrationally counter to their rational interests, and then watching as those irrational actions hurt not only the actor, but also other people (possibly including yourself).

Still, on the balance, basing your own decision-making and worldview on economics is pretty likely to increase your happiness. As Cowen himself notes:

Most generally, (good) economics insulates people from expecting the impossible, and that does make for greater happiness and contentment.

Fred on Executive Power

Andrew Sullivan is pleasantly surprised that Fred Thompson has a restrained view of Executive Power that seems to break with Cheney. Sully also makes note of Thompson's real (not faux) humility.

I want to say this much about Fred: despite my making fun of him here and here, I've had occasion to follow the former Senator's career a little more closely than other politicians. I once attended a guest lecture he gave where he made a last minute change of topics (from discussing the Clinton Justice Dept. to discussing campaign finance reform). Even though I completely disagreed with him on the issue, I came away very impressed with his candor and, yes, humility about the topic. He was one of the rare politicians who was willing to acknowledge a little bit of doubt that his position was correct, and to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other side- no railing against corporate lobbyists and special interests or anything of that sort. Just a rational discussion of what he thought was good and bad about McCain-Feingold, and why he may have been wrong.

When I saw that the die-hard conservatives were trying to draft him to run, I was more than a little surprised, given what I knew about his humility in general. In some ways, he is this year's Republican answer to Obama- just without the charisma. Generally speaking, Fred is a good man with a fairly well-rounded commitment to principle. I don't know that he would be a good President, but he'd be far better than Hillary or Giuliani, if only because of his more humble view of Executive Power.

Also- no matter what, it's about time we ended the string of electing people whose primary political experience has been in the Executive branch (whether it be federal, state, or local). If you ever wanted to know why federal power has grown so much in the last 40 years or so, you need look no further than the fact that Gerald Ford (who wasn't even elected) is the only President during that time period whose primary political experience was in the legislature (or, for that matter, the judiciary).

This isn't to say that a former Congressman won't expand Executive Power (see, e.g., LBJ), just that a former Congressman or judge is much more likely to have an actual concern for the Constitutional separation of powers and respect for the will of at least one other branch.

Lucky Dube, RIP

If you have never heard of South African reggae star Lucky Dube, then I am sincerely sorry- in my opinion, he was the greatest advocate of the freedom philosophy in music since at least Bob Marley. In some ways, I (a devout fan of Marley) think Lucky's music had more of an effect on my thought than Marley's.

Sadly, Lucky Dube was shot and killed last week in a carjacking attempt in Johannesburg, South Africa- by the very types of people he dedicated his life to fighting through his music. If you have never listened to him, you can listen to some short samples here, or check out his song lyrics here. What made him particularly powerful was that his advocacy of freedom did not change one bit after apartheid fell- he was every bit as opposed to racism against white people post-Apartheid as he was opposed to racism by white people during apartheid. There is also a strong undercurrent in his songs- both pre-and post-apartheid - that government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. This isn't to say Lucky Dube was a libertarian (I'm not sure he ever even heard of libertarianism), or even would agree with libertarians on a lot of important things (though "Taxman" is as libertarian a song as they come). But the underlying message of his music was one that was profoundly at the heart of a true libertarian philosophy: self-reliance, personal responsibility, a deep respect for others, a love of life, and a rejection of force. He also had some extremely personal songs about children, family, and love that are as beautiful and emotional as you will ever come across. Put another way, Lucky Dube's music is

as human and unselfish a portrayal of the freedom philosophy as you will ever find. The world is a little less bright without him.

Just a few of his most libertarian-ish songs included:

"Taxman", a song that talks about the government as legalized theft, and, in a sad coincidence, contains the lines "I pay for the police/To err..I don' t know why/'Cause if my dollar was good enough/There wouldn' t be so much crime/In the streets".

"Affirmative Action", about the tendency of people to look for government to save them rather than educate themselves and actually work for a living.

"Feel Irie", (NOTE: the "bother?" in the link should read "part of") about the fact that life is tough, but we shouldn't feel as if somehow others are immune to troubles; instead, people have it within themselves to make their own happiness. This includes two of my favorite lines of all time: "People had troubles since the Pope was an altar boy/People had worries from when the Dead Sea was only critical".

"Is This Freedom?" and "Mickey Mouse Freedom", about the false perception of freedom that results from replacing one form of particularly nefarious oligarchy with another.

"House of Exile", a particularly beautiful song the exact meaning of which I find difficult to express.

"Life in the Movies"- a post-apartheid song that includes the phrase: "Don't steal, the police hate competition."

"Sleeping Dogs Lie"- a song about the importance of individual happiness, and the need to let other people be happy. Includes a tale of tolerance and acceptance towards gays- a rarity in the reggae world, not to mention subsaharan Africa.

A few random questions for neocons and theocons

1. Can people really be forced to be free? If yes, isn't this a paradox? If no, how do you justify military action for the purpose of spreading democracy?

2. Isn't the core of a moral act the fact that you actively chose the moral act of your own free will? If so, then how does prohibiting immoral action (as you define it) increase morality?

3. Why do free market principles apply in the field of business and economics, but not in the field of moral action?

4. If God is omnipotent, why must he be protected? If God is infinite, how can you know for certain what his will is? Similarly, if God has a "plan" that we do not and cannot know, how can we know for certain how he wants us to implement his plan?

5. Why would it ever be rational for Iran to try to nuke us (or provide a terrorist with a nuke) if it is a virtual guarantee that we will always have way more nukes? In other words, if a nuclear attack on Israel or the US would result in the complete obliteration of Iran, why would Iran ever attempt such an attack? If, in fact, they are developing nukes, isn't it more logical that they are developing those nukes purely as an attempt to get leverage against us (and prevent us from attacking them)? If you agree that it is irrational for Iran to attack us, but believe that Ahmadinejad is irrational (because he wants to bring about the Apocalypse), do you realize that Ahmadinejad has very limited power in Iran's theocracy?

A few random questions for Progressives

These questions aren't meant to be snarky- I really am curious about the answers.

1. Why should the arbitrary fact that someone was born in the United States mean that they should be forced to pay for top-quality healthcare that is unheard of outside the West for someone in Hawaii, and in the process be prevented from spending that money to make sure that a family in Malawi is able to live on $5 a day instead of $1, or has access to a minimal level of healthcare? In follow-up, which of these two examples does more to make the world a better place?

2. Why do micro-loan programs work so much better than entitlement programs in bringing people out of abject poverty?

3. Which is more selfish- only helping those you care about, or forcing other people to help those you care about?

4. If, as I often hear Progressives claim, you believe in the (fundamentally libertarian) maxim that you can't legislate morality, how is forced charity (aka entitlement programs) not the legislation of morality?

5. Can someone who chooses to work be forced to work more and harder in order to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for someone who actively chooses not to work?

Something forgotten by the "Ticking Time Bomb" argument

I've argued before that torture, or "harsh interrogation techniques" (per the Bush-euphemism du jour) doesn't generally work particularly well. But, that isn't to say that it never works- just that on average it is less likely to get reliable intelligence than other methods, or is likely to produce so much bad intelligence as to overtax precious resources that could be used on pursuing more reliable intelligence.

Anyways, the argument of the pro-torture (or "harsh interrogation techniques") crowd often centers on the ticking time-bomb scenario. And, frankly, they're probably wise to do so- in an event where you are talking about an imminent threat of millions of people dying and where you know (or have ample reason to believe) that torture is the only thing that will get you the intelligence you need quickly enough, why wouldn't you torture? Therefore, the argument goes, the President (or appropriate officials down the line) should have discretion to make the call on when torture (or "harsh interrogation techniques") is permitted- without fear of prosecution.

Here's the problem with this argument, though- necessity, self-defense, and defense of others is an affirmative defense already recognized by every single common law court in the US, Britain, and- to my knowledge- the world. Having such an affirmative defense means that, yes, the authorizing official and (maybe) the interrogator, rather than the prosecutor, will bear the burden of proof if they are ever brought up on charges...but isn't that the way it's supposed to work? If you're going to cross the legal line, shouldn't you be required to have sufficient justification for doing so? Think of the affirmative defense as a post-sentence trial (for purposes of this analogy, the torture is the "sentence") of the alleged terrorist, but with a lower standard of proof (either "clear and convincing" or a "preponderance of evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Why is this already existent way of handling torture issues insufficient to protect national security?

Groan!

I hate to continue with this string of comments about Townhall.com columns, but they've been particularly bad these last few days.

Today's Chuck Colson column has one of the most preposterous premises of any column I've ever read, and may be the penultimate example of the cringe-worthiness of mixing sports and religion. The premise of his column? People should root for the Rockies in the World Series, not because they are underdogs who put on one of the most amazing runs in baseball history, but because "The Rockies are the first major league sports franchise organized on specifically Christian principles."

First of all, the premise itself is deeply flawed- the Rockies are hardly the first team to screen players for "moral values"- this has actually been the operating premise behind a huge number of teams, some successful, some not so much. Additionally, while it is truly a kind thing that the Rockies have voted the widow of their minor league coach (who was killed during a game in a freak accident) a full playoff share, does Colson really think that just about any other team wouldn't have done the same? Finally, does Colson really think that the Rockies are "the first major league sports franchise" to post Bible quotes in their training facilities and have regular prayer and fellowship meetings?

Second of all-the Rockies are hardly the only successful sports franchise in recent years to have an emphasis on good character (usually referred to in sports as "chemistry"). For instance, would anyone say that the reigning Super Bowl champion Colts- led by hard-core Christians Peyton Manning and Tony Dungy, and all-around nice guy Marvin Harrison (who are run by the same guy who put together the 1990's Bills Super Bowl teams) have a lack of emphasis on character (though I'll admit, Peyton Manning's face makes me nauseous)?

Worst. Column. Ever.

It is amazing to me that, in this day and age, we still have columnists on widely-read sites like Townhall who continue to insist that the War in Iraq is justified as an attack against the terrorists of 9/11 or against closely aligned terrorists. I always love when columnists make the argument that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact", as if pre-emptive attacks (without a declaration of war) on nations that aren't an imminent (or even near-imminent) threat to the US are somehow necessary to prevent the destruction of the US.

Listen- if you don't like the way the Constitution is written, then it gives you a pretty good idea of what you should do: AMEND IT! This used to be the conservative position; now, though, conservatives have decided that the Constitution can just be ignored on the grounds that "it's not a suicide pact," so the plain meaning of the words can be altered to create enough ambiguity to allow the President to do whatever he wants to fight a couple of stateless terrorists.

I also love the common claim that "they" despise us (to the point of wanting to kill us) just because we exist and do not practice sharia law. Of course, this ignores the fact that there isn't just one "they", and that most of the "theys" have various different reasons for hating us. Some of "them" hate us because of the mess we made in Iraq; some because we're killing a lot of people in "their" region; some hate us because we have a military presence in their holy land; some hate us because of our pervasive culture; some hate us for our support for Israel; and finally, yes, some hate us because we're not them. Of course, the idea that a different response is required for each group of "them" requires an appreciation of nuance and a desire to ask the question: "Why?" And the idea that maybe we should try to take approaches that eliminate existing "theys" without creating new "theys" is, apparently, the equivalent of a "clearly written prescription for disaster." Or maybe Harris just believes that every single Arab is a terrorist just dying to attack the US, so no new "theys" can be created, and we only need to destroy the existing "theys"- if that is the case, though, then why isn't he advocating just blowing the whole region up with a couple of nukes?

The most staggeringly bad line of this staggeringly idiotic column is: "the fact remains that we were indeed attacked by a people, on our shores.(emphasis mine)" So, because we were attacked by "a people, on our shores," we can now attack just any people we wish?

In any event, not even Ron Paul wants to just stand idly by and allow us to be attacked by "them." While I am not 100% supportive of Paul's foreign policy (it is more isolationist than I am willing to go), the fact is that he did support fighting back in Afghanistan (if not the subsequent nation-building, which Republicans used to find abhorrent), and he continues to support a variety of non-military or quasi-military measures to get people who actually represent a threat to our national security- whether they be massive bounties, letters of marque (I always have to throw that one in- who doesn't love pirates?), or more appropriate law enforcement efforts. But it's not about curling up in the fetal position and letting "them" come after us- it's about asking why "they" want to come after us in the first place. Going over there and destroying a country in the heart of the Arab world might kill some of "them", but if it creates more of "them" than it kills, is it really a good idea?

To quote a once-widely respected (until he fought against the neo-con party line) Republican ex-General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State:
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Of course, Phil Harris' career as a software engineer in frickin' Nebraska (yeah, that center of terrorist targets Nebraska) makes him far more knowledgeable about military matters than a guy who waged perhaps the most successful war in American history.

Dennis Prager on Killing Internet Freedom

I've obviously been a pretty emphatic advocate of the need for civility on internet blogs, message boards, and e-mails to commentators. But Dennis Prager's column today strikes me as one of the best ways to attack the free speech triumph that is the internet. Money quote:

"There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings."

To sum up, Prager believes that the anonymity provided by the internet is responsible for all sorts of ad hominems and vitriol, making the comparison with a relative lack of ad hominems and vitriol in the letters to the editor section of the newspaper, where people must identify themselves with name and hometown. As a result, Prager advocates requirements that individual commenters and bloggers give their name and hometown for any comments they wish to post.

There are a number of huge flaws with this idea, though:
1. Incivility on the internet is a nuisance, but not a threat; if you are seriously offended and hurt by something said by an anonymous commenter or blogger, then you need to grow a thicker skin. Not to say you can't be seriously annoyed by this sort of thing- just that we're not usually talking about serious threats to someone's reputation or physical well-being. An ad hominem by an anonymous poster is hardly going to hurt someone's reputation, and it really shouldn't hurt their feelings. The primary effect of the ad hominem nuisance is often that it prevents the anonymous poster's legitimate arguments from ever getting a fair hearing from the "victim."

2. The anonymity provided by the internet, whether on comments or in the actual blogosphere, is one of the most essential elements of the internet. If you are able to maintain some degree of anonymity, you are much more free to advocate unpopular positions, or even just popular positions on divisive issues. This is a particularly important element point now that google gives employers and prospective employers virtually unlimited access to everything that exists on the internet- access that employers increasingly use to research job candidates. For instance, think of the effect of non-anonymity on an outright communist's willingness to engage in internet discussion if the communist is aware that his current or future employer will be able to tie him to his statements.

3. How would one enforce this anonymity policy? Would one be able to just put down any old name and town- in which case anonymity is essentially unaffected? Or would a poster's hometown have to be closely correlated to his IP address? Or would we have to have software that is tied to the name of the account owner (creating massive privacy concerns)?

4. Who says that tying one's name to a comment actually has an effect on civility? I've seen plenty of letter to the editor over the years that could be characterized as "ad hominems" or invective-filled. Moreover, how many letters to the editor containing ad hominems and invective don't get published at all because they simply contain nothing worth publishing (which is usually the case with any ad hominem)?

5. Regardless of anonymity, most sites already have editorial control over comments posted on their websites. When a comment shows up that is particularly lacking in substance and filled with ad hominems or invective, the site's owner has the ability to delete the comment- and frequently does.

Now, I have no problem with individual sites choosing whatever commenting policy they wish. Indeed, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why a site would wish to prevent anonymous comments. But there are also plenty of legitimate reasons why permitting anonymous comments is worthwhile. To ignore these reasons is just silly. An even scarier type of anonymity ban, though, would be on an abolition of anonymous blogging in general (rather than just commenting). Currently, the blogosphere is as close to a pure meritocracy as has ever existed- good blogs get the most traffic; bad blogs wither and die. What makes many blogs good blogs, though, is their willingness to express unique ideas; an anonymity ban would have a chilling effect on any blogger expressing unique ideas where the blogger's ideas aren't well-known to begin with (and where the blogger isn't already pursuing a career path surrounded by like-minded people).

The Internet, Nanotech, and the Obsolescence of Government

(WARNING- DORKY POST ON LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL/ECONOMIC THEORY)

Perhaps one of the most important- and legitimate- functions of government is as a sort of clearing-house for information sharing. For instance, government can claim a proper role in regulating lead content in paint not so much because one or two extra parts per million will automatically mean a catastrophic risk to children, but because citizens lack the ability to be all-knowing about the safety of everything that comes into their lives. Unfortunately, with many things, a customer can only find out the hard way that a product is unsafe. Similarly, government can claim a proper role in prohibiting or regulating drug use on the grounds that, by banning a product and enforcing that ban, it is preventing people from using unsafe products that may seem safe at first and are highly addictive (of course, the drugs chosen for this prohibition and regulation are completely arbitrary, but that's besides the point). In other words, the status that government gives to a product, person or action is intended to let the public know that the product, person or action is good or bad.

Libertarians are fond of pointing out that these functions can be performed just as well- indeed, even better - by private industry, like Consumer Reports. Unfortunately, this argument has been impractical- the costs of obtaining this type of information have historically been extremely high, particularly in terms of time required to research a product, person, or action.

So government regulation of some things that present legitimate hazards is perhaps legitimate. The problem, of course, is that few products, persons, or actions are bad for everyone, just as few are actually good for everyone. So, while the government policy may have a good intent (for instance, preventing people from becoming drug-addled criminals), it often has very arbitrary results as applied (locking up people whose casual use of "illegal" drugs causes no external harms). Indeed, government's decision to regulate something is almost never the result of a finding that something is 100% evil or good for 100% of the people, but is instead based on a finding of what does the most good for the group that is most politically powerful on an issue at a given time.

The internet, however, has the power to combine the best of the personal choice/well-informed consumer ideal of the Consumer Reports-type industry with the relatively lower opportunity costs (to the individual consumer/taxpayer) of government regulation. With the continued development of portable nanotechnology that can be brought anywhere, and the unlimited potential of the internet in terms of making information available, the need for government one-size-fits-all rules is decreasing. In other words, portable nanotechnology with access to the internet presents an opportunity for individuals to have almost zero cost (both opportunity and actual) in obtaining information about a purchase or action. Near-immediate access to this information will allow them to better decide for themselves whether their intended purchase or action makes sense for them specifically.

Under this scenario- which will certainly take many years to reach its full potential- the immediate access to information will obviate the need for government to impose an absolute barrier for or against the subject products or actions. To put it all another way: government action is unnecessary where all individuals have a zero or near zero-cost opportunity to learn for themselves whether something is right or wrong for them. Nanny-statism, to a large degree, loses much of its rationale.

What might happen if Giuliani wins

There have obviously been plenty of stories the last few weeks about the possibility that the theocons will run a 3rd Party candidate if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. There has also been plenty of speculation (denied by the Ron Paul campaign) that Ron Paul could mount a third party candidacy after he uses the primaries to boost his name recognition. Even if Ron Paul does not mount a third party candidacy, his nomination campaign will likely have succeeded in creating a potentially permanent and irreconcilable divide between the libertarian wing of the party and the neocons.

Should there be two third party campaigns from the traditional Republican coalition (and assuming Hillary gets the Democratic nomination), we could be faced with the most historic election in many decades. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the theocon candidate captures 10% of the overall vote, just about all of which would come from traditional Republican voters. In addition, let us say that Ron Paul captures 15% of the overall vote, with 2/3 of that coming from libertarian Republicans. These assumptions, I think, are pretty realistic given anti-war sentiment, the typical voting cohesiveness of the theocons, and the fact that Giuliani and Hillary are the libertarian anti-Christs.

This would mean that Giuliani would get- at best, I think- 25-30% of the vote in the general election. A performance of that nature would almost certainly have serious and long-lasting effects on the Republican Party. What kinds of effects? I think the possibilities are:
1. Complete disintegration, a la the Whigs post-1852. This is certainly a possibility, especially if the Republican Party does nothing in response to this (hypothetical) historically bad performance. This is most likely to happen if the Party just blames the election on the ever-popular BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), resulting in the formation of at least one somewhat viable third party that would ultimately drain the Republican Party.
2. The Republican Party is forced to completely re-invent itself as essentially a reincarnation of the Old Right in an attempt to entice the theo-cons and libertarians back into the fold. This would most closely parallel the response to the 1976 election, which of course led to the nomination of Reagan in 1980. Depending on Hillary's governing philosophy (which I suspect will not be much different from the neo-cons), this scenario could center on the Republicans turning themselves into very much a pure anti-war party, dumping the neo-cons in the process while bringing on board a bunch of angry Progressives.
3. The Republicans concede to additional "Campaign Finance Reform" in the name of "preventing corruption." As with previous Campaign Finance Reform, this would result in making life even more difficult for independent candidates, and would safeguard the Republicans from needing to do very much at all to keep their status in American politics.
4. Ron Paul makes a significant enough impact in the primaries that, when Giuliani goes down in flames, Paul becomes a major voice within the Party. By "significant," I mean 15-20% of the vote, which seems quite unlikely right now. This results in a scenario where the Republican Party is essentially pushed back to its positions of 1992-1994.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities. All I know, though, is that a showing of 25-30% by a major party in this day and age would be catastrophic for that party. This is particularly true where almost all of the third party voting would be coming from that party's traditional base (contrary to popular belief, Perot voters in 1992 were almost as likely to be taken out of Clinton's support as Bush's).

Michael Kinsley Gets It

Michael Kinsely, as usual, gets libertarians more or less right- this time in Time. It's a rarity to see an article about libertarians that says something like the following- especially from someone on the left side of the political spectrum (and yes, I know that Kinsley is a bit different from other liberals):

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country. [My emphasis]

Of course, Kinsley is slightly wrong in calling libertarians "isolationists," even if he is using the word in a non-judgmental way. Isolationism has two different definitions, depending on who you talk to or the dictionary you consult. It either means abstinence from international relations of any type or a policy of simply staying out of the affairs of other nations. Only the latter definition applies to most libertarians, who are obviously extremely firm believers in strong international trade without barriers.

Crack for Political Bloggers

Have fun.(It even has a fun animation that allows you to see the change in donations by region over time).

One thing that you may notice is that Obama beats the hell out of Hillary in most of the red states. Some other things: Mormons really, really like Mitt Romney. I didn't even think that many people lived in Utah! Also, Ron Paul is the only candidate below McCain who seems to have any national appeal whasoever.


(HT: Volokh Conspiracy).

Way to go, Dems!

So, you really had to pursue that entirely symbolic resolution these last few weeks, didn't you? Wasn't Bush doing a good enough job screwing up one of our most important alliances on his own? I guess not. Just when you think no one can be as bad at international relations than the Bush Administration, in swoop the congressional Dems....

Well, I hope you guys are happy with the results. And yes, the Turks' new best friend referenced in the article is the same Syrian President Bashar Assad that tried to prevent democracy in Lebanon and that we have (justifiably) labeled a supporter of terrorism. It's also the same Syria that Turkey almost went to war with less than 10 years ago. We can only hope that what Turkey is about to do doesn't completely screw up the one region of Iraq that actually understands what freedom and democracy are supposed to look like.

(Disclaimer: for the record, I'm not saying that the Turks are just going to enter Iraqi villages because of the Dems' resolution- frankly, the Turks have an independent right to do exactly what they're doing for their own protection, assuming of course their claims of cross-border attacks are accurate. However, they've been held at bay because of their historic relationship with the US and because of some weak assurances by the US and Iraq that they would pursue the PKK themselves. The timing of this news against the backdrop of the genocide resolution is in my mind a curious coincidence at best. I'm guessing that the resolution may have been a last straw).

**UPDATE, 9:47 AM: Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting thread on the use of the word "genocide."

Rudy Promises to Save the World

In a recent town hall meeting (aka, campaign speech where politician pretends to be one of "the People"), Rudy Giuliani assured a questioner that, under a Giuliani administration, the US will be prepared for responding to an invasion of space aliens.

Brian Doherty, one of those whacky libertarians at Reason Hit & Run, had this to say in response:

"Romney, worried that the invaders might be from Kolob, will be hesitant to strike quickly; of the GOP front-runners, it has to be Rudy if "will protect us from alien invaders" is your main political concern."

Heh.

I think we should demand to know where all the candidates stand on this critical issue. I'm guessing Ron Paul would handle any such threat by hiring mercenary space pirates under his letters of marque rationale. Heck, I'm sure he already has Bill Pullman (aka "Lone Star") on speed dial for just this purpose.

What about the other candidates?

Some more on health care

Tyler Cowen this morning asked if there is any further government intervention that libertarians would support as being necessary to help someone. Since I am not an absolute anarcho-capitalist, and since I like to think I have a heart, I got to thinking about this question.

As I said in my McCain post, the McCain proposal strikes me as a step in the right direction; but this doesn't really answer Cowen's question, since what is good about the McCain proposal is a recognition of where government intervention has screwed up our health care system. In other words, what is good about it is primarily that it eliminates or reduces the role of government in certain areas of the system.

So, turning to Cowen's actual question, I think there is some justifiable government intervention to help the neediest of the needy. One thing that maybe would be workable would be a government program under which government agrees to reimburse insurance costs over a certain percentage of household income- this is of course effectively a tax credit, but one that is more situation dependent than an outright flat credit of x dollars. To make things fairer, we could also make it a graduated system- so, the reimbusability threshold would be, say, 10% of a household's first $25,000, 20% of the next $25,000, 30% of the next $50,000, and so on. This would be fair because it would essentially be a self-limiting program- over a certain level of income, reimbursable coverage would be effectively impossible. Moreover, the lower your income, the more your insurance is reimbursable, and vice versa. So, a household making $100,000 would have to have $22,500 in necessary insurance costs to be eligible (almost $2000 a month). On the other hand, a household making $20,000 would only need $2000 of insurance premiums before reimbursability would kick in (about $170 a month).

I acknowledge some inherent initial problems with this scenario, not least of which is the question of how long it will take for government to reimburse beneficiaries of the program. Maybe we could create the equivalent of a reverse W-4 for insurance companies, which would allow the insurance companies to deduct your excess insurance costs from your monthly bill; if it turns out that you have more gross income at the end of the year than you report to the insurance company, then you owe the government for the unreimbursed amount when you file your tax return.

Another inherent problem with my hypothetical program is the question of preventing people from gaming the system by getting more expensive insurance than they actually need (which would then create an incentive for insurance companies to charge far more for insurance than the real value of the insurance). Perhaps you could get around this by requiring particular insurance plans to be certified as reimbursable, which admittedly has its own set of problems.

I'm sure there are plenty of other inherent problems, but conceptually, I think it is a proposal that is fair and is not overly offensive to libertarian or conservative principles (although administrability may be a fatal flaw). I'm sure there will be dissent, though, which I would be happy to hear.

McCain on Health Care

Every once in awhile, John McCain reminds you that he remembers what being a Republican used to mean. His plan isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's important because it actually is based on the question of "why are so many without insurance?" The answer of course is that: A. insurance (and healthcare more generally) is exceedingly expensive in this country; and
B. Some percentage of people just don't want insurance almost regardless of the cost.

As Michael Moore's precious World Health Organization study found, the US is tops in the world in quality of care; the reason our overall ranking in terms of quality of system is that: 1. the ranking is biased (by presupposing socialized medicine is better), and, more importantly, 2. the US has ridiculously high overall costs. McCain's plan focuses on those overly high costs; most other plans, including Hillary's and Romney's, focus solely on getting the uninsured insured- in other words, they treat one symptom as if it were the entire disease. Importantly, McCain seems to recognize that much of the cause of high costs in our system isn't too little regulation- it's too much.

In any event, here is what I like about the McCain proposal:
1. Shifting responsibility for some care to nurses (and away from doctors)- if you've ever talked to an experienced nurse at length, you will come to quickly realize that their experience makes them extremely knowledgeable about many medical procedures and diagnoses (often more so than even a doctor who's been around for a few years). Of course, we already have a nursing shortage, but increased workplace freedom for nurses would alleviate this a little bit; additionally, it would increase the amount hospitals are willing to pay their nurses (since they are saving more money on paying slightly fewer MDs).
2. Elimination/reduction of cross-state licensure requirements- this is just common sense (why should medicine be practiced differently in different states); it would only have a minimal effect on costs, probably, but cross-state licensure requirements are just silly to begin with. (I acknowledge there is a federalism concern here, though).
3. Permission for re-importation of drugs from Canada. I acknowledge that this creates problems of intellectual property protections; however, the effect of this will be to ultimately even out drug prices between the US and Canada to reflect a more accurate market value for both (right now, the US insurance market is effectively subsidizing Canadian prescription drugs, as well as prescription drugs in other countries with price controls and universal medicine).
4. Patent reform- I'd like to hear more specifics on this, but our current patent regime is way too restrictive
5. Shifting of tax credits from employers to individuals- I've long said that the employer-based tax credit system creates a perverse set of incentives that results in high overall costs and often inadequate coverage, which effectively pushes overall costs even higher.
6. Elimination of prohibitions against purchase of out of state insurance. Again, there are federalism concerns here, but the wide variations in state insurance coverage requirements are foolish and arbitrary and result in a significant reduction in competition; additionally, this is a legitimate interstate commerce issue.
7. A recognition that a properly functioning market would have competititon for people with pre-existing illnesses, rather than a generalized reluctance to cover such people.

Here is what I don't like:
1. Tort reform- I may just need more details on this, but usually "tort reform" isn't really reform in the proper sense- it usually means creating statutory or bureacratic protections against common law liability. On the other hand, if he means elimination of existing laws and regulations that artificially encourage lawsuits by creating false definitions of standards of care, then I can get on board with this proposal.
2. The one-size-fits all tax credit. I don't know how you can make this more flexible without creating a bureaucratic nightmare, but the size of the credit is massive. While I'm never opposed to significantly reducing the amount the government can take from people, a one size fits all tax credit may amount to a several hundred billion dollar entitlement program unless it is properly implemented.
Areas where I would like to see more details:
1. Encouragement of walk-in clinics at places like Wal-Mart- this is a promising area, but I am generally suspicious whenever the government talks of "encouragement."
2. His Health Savings Account plan- what is the interplay with his tax credit scheme? I am suspicious of his use of the phrase "tax-preferred."
3. Medicare reform- in principle, he is certainly correct about what Medicare should and should not be paying for; however, making this distinction in the real world may mean a choice between arbitrary lines and an even bigger bureacratic mess.

On the whole, McCain's proposal is a logical step forward, and mostly makes sense because it actually begins with a question (to wit: what is wrong with our healthcare system) rather than an assumption (ie, we have too many uninsured people).

I continue to have a difficult time understanding why so many conservatives (especially neo-cons and theo-cons) continue to view McCain as a "RINO." Except for McCain-Feingold (which, by the way, conservative darlings Pres. Bush and Fred Thompson supported) and a couple other notable exceptions, McCain has been a reliable voice for historically conservative positions- maybe even the most reliable such voice in the campaign. For some reason, he is still viewed as being pro-choice (despite a profoundly pro-life record) because of one statement he made in the 2000 campaign that was taken completely out of context and then used by Karl Rove to destroy him in South Carolina.

***UPDATE, 11:59PM*** I foolishly and stupidly forgot to mention McCain's strong support of gun control. However, I don't see how Rudy is any more conservative in this regard. I'm sure there's other issues where he isn't particularly conservative. The immigration issue is one where conservatism has backed further and further away from old-fashioned conservatism, and therefore McCain. But compared to Giuliani or Romney, he's Ronald Reagan reincarnated.

On Hollywood Republicans

Kyle's comment the other day about Fred Thompson being representative of a number of Hollywood Republicans in elected office (Thompson, Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Sonny Bono) or running for elected office got me thinking a little bit. It is certainly fairly anomolous that there are so many (comparatively) Republican politicians with deep Hollywood backgrounds, and so few Democrat politicians with similar backgrounds (only Al Franken comes to mind).

One possible explanation for this, I think, is that Democrats are able to take most of Hollywood's substantial financial support for granted. Republicans, on the other hand, cannot. Since Hollywood has a huge amount of potential campaign money, as well as a lot of ability to create more subtle influences on politics (through movies, tv shows, high-profile endorsements, etc.), Hollywood is a valuable resource that cannot be ignored by either party. Since Republicans have a rather small overall presence in this community, it makes sense for them to put forward candidates with Hollywood backgrounds in order to get at least a little bit of the Hollywood pie. Otherwise, you could argue that Republicans would be almost entirely shut out of that pie.

It occurs to me that the Democrats may face a similar dilemma (historically) with the wealthier business interests (and the obviously massive pie they represent). As a result, do they tend to run more corporate businesspeople? I don't know if there's a good way of putting together reliable data on this, but an extremely quick and cursory perusal of prior careers of Members of Congress seems to argue in favor of my completely speculative theory. At the very least, there are far more Dems with big business backgrounds than you would expect if you looked solely at voting and contribution habits.

On Jurisprudence and the New Deal

A question I've had on mind lately that I would love a response to:

Why is it that most New Deal-era jurisprudence (1937 and later) was ever regarded as Constitutionally sound precedent. Moreover, why is it that this jurisprudence, particularly regarding the powers of the federal government, continues to be viewed as binding precedent?

The basis for my question is that this jurisprudence primarily resulted as a direct or indirect result of Roosevelt's various court-packing schemes. Wasn't this an interference with the independence of the federal judiciary that should be a cause for considerable skepticism of any post-1937 decision pertaining to the powers of the federal government?

I know that there is a certain general need for certainty in the law-hence the generalized respect for precedent. However, these decisions (and their progeny) in my mind create uncertainty by almost completely ignoring or rewriting the text of the Constitution. Is the problem just one of being unable to put the toothpaste back in the tube? Or do judges now view this decisions as having a perfectly legitimate basis despite FDR's illegitimate influence on them? Or is the problem really just one of lack of courage on the part of the judiciary branch, Con Law professors, and members of the SCOTUS Bar?

Did the Domestic Wiretapping Program Start Before 9/11?

A commenter at Obsidian Wings brought my attention to this article. In case you want to skip the link, some background: the former CEO of Qwest was recently convicted of insider trading after a trial in which he was blocked from presenting a defense that his prosecution was really just the result of retaliation for Qwest's refusal to comply with the government's wiretapping program. He is currently appealing the verdict (in part, it seems, on grounds that he was prevented from raising this defense). Some of the documents in the trial have now been released in a partially redacted form.

Money quote:

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.
The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.
The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.
USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio's attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn't think the NSA program had legal standing.

I don't know how reliable all this is, since Nacchio certainly has incentive to lie, and since the article doesn't specify what type of documents these are. But if it's true, it holds a ton of meaning, not least of which is that the Bush/Cheney view of the Constitution didn't exactly change because of 9/11.

Fred Thompson=Wesley Clark 2008?

After the debates last night, I can't help thinking Fred Thompson is this year's Wesley Clark. Think about it:
1. A "Draft Fred" movement, just like the Draft Wes Clark movement.
2. A wll-known career in a sector usually pre-disposed against the relevant party (ie, Hollywood vs. Republicans, the military at the time vs. Democrats)
3. A late, mid-September entry after months of speculation
4. A complete lack of presence at debates and on camera
5. A completely unfounded belief amongst supporters that getting the candidate into the race is the party's only hope to win in the general
6. A position in the top two in polling shortly after entering the race.

....Of course, we all know how Clark's campaign turned out, and there's really no reason to think Thompson will do any better.

Getting to the Bottom of the "Phony Soldiers" mess

I decided to cut through the crap that is the spin of both sides on this issue (I just do NOT trust Media Matters after the Imus garbage), and I actually read the transcript from Rush's own site with an eye to giving Rush the benefit of the doubt. (Rush famously edited this transcript to remove a minute and a half- so it's even more biased in his favor). I figured I would find that it was much ado about nothing, and certainly no worse than the silliness over the General Betray-Us incident.

What I found was that the entire segment was far worse than anything I could have imagined- talk about poisoning the well of free speech and civil dialogue! He was not, as some of his defenders claim, talking about one soldier who "washed out" of the military- if he was, then he misspoke in a glaring fashion. The comment he was responding to was saying that NONE, ZERO, NADA, of the soldiers whose anti-war comments have appeared in the media are "real soldiers." He proceeded to talk about the case of Cpl. MacBeth, to suggest that MacBeth was an example of what he was talking about- but in no way could you interpret what he was saying as being limited to Cpl. MacBeth.
Also, a few other notes from the segment:
1. Before the phone call that gave rise to this whole mess, Rush took a call from an anti-war Republican (actually, a pro-pullout Republican, which is slightly different). He repeatedly refused to accept that this guy was a Republican. He repeatedly accuses the guy of lying, saying that no Republican could POSSIBLY support a withdrawal. So, in essence, there is a conspiracy of people who want to call his show and lie about being a Republican so they can talk against the war
2. I haven't seen this reported anywhere, but apparently Limbaugh is still convinced that on the WMD issue, "We all know they (the WMD's) were there..." He actually agrees with his caller that the WMD's not only WERE there, but that they still ARE there, and are being used against our troops! The apparent source for the claim is this Fox News article from 2004 which talks about two incidents where old WMD containers were apparently used in the IED- this was the only article I could find on the subject, and it does not appear that anyone ever actually verified that there were live gases in the explosives.

So, to sum up- Rush thinks any soldier opposing the war is a "phony soldier", any Republican opposing the war is lying for political purposes about their party affiliation, and there not only were, but continue to be, WMDs in Iraq....But Ron Paul is the delusional one?

The fundamentally positive view of libertarians

Watching the debate tonight, it struck me (as it has many other libertarians over the years) how fundamentally pessimistic a view both Progressives and Conservatives take of human nature. Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to have a fundementally optimistic view of human nature.

Put simply, the reason why libertarians have such faith in markets (both in the sense of traditionally defined markets, and the analogous markets that arise with liberal personal freedoms) is that they trust individual people to do the right thing more often than not.

Progressives and Conservatives on the other hand often claim to have trust in people to do the right thing. In practice, however, they don't trust people to do what is right, since they fundamentally believe people should be required to act in a way that the leading Progressive or Conservative of the moment thinks is right.

The knock on libertarians, of course, is usually that libertarianism amounts to nothing more than selfish arrogance. To an extent, of course, it is true that libertarianism justifies selfishness;however, the libertarian definition of selfishness is very different from the more popular understanding of the word, since libertarianism rests on the premise of doing no harm to others. There is of course, nothing arrogant about permitting other people to live their lives as they wish. Moreover, libertarianism fundamentally trusts that individuals will frequently act in a selfless manner on their own; the areas in which they act selflessly will, according to market principles, be the areas in which the greatest demand for selfless action exists.

If you ask me, then, it is far more arrogant and selfish to attempt to impose one set of priorities for selfless action on the rest of the population, believing that your one set of priorities should take precedence over any other possible set of priorities a taxpayer may have.

The hypothetical I like to use is that of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In this hypothetical, Bill and Melinda earn $10 billion one year, pre-tax. They then give $9.99 billion to the Foundation, which promptly disburses the money to various worthwhile causes and individuals throughout the world, and particularly in the Third World. As a result of this donation, the Gates' owe far more money in taxes than they actually kept after their donations. My question to both Progressives and Conservatives then becomes: is the government in this situation justified in throwing them into prison for tax evasion? Why or why not?

I know the above hypothetical is rather unrealistic; however, it is theoretically possible, and it is intended to be extreme so as to drive my point home more clearly.

Candidate Thought Bubbles

A brief summary of what each candidate was thinking during the debate:

Giuliani: Ron Paul annoys me, but at least I hate the Constitution less than Ken-Doll over there...There are good unions and bad unions... the UAW is a good union- even if McCain says their demands for pensions and retiree health care add $1700 to every car they make. I understand economics and free markets but dammit I don't like them. If only I could make economics consistent with what I want....wait, a second, I've got it! Doublethink, doublethink, doublethink! 2+2=5!

McCain: How the hell am I losing to these bozos? I'm a decent and good person, I understand markets, I understand foreign relations, I understand military strategy, I understand torture from first-hand experience, and dammit I ACTUALLY KNEW BARRY GOLDWATER! Am I just paying the price for my ill-advised campaign finance reform crusade? That's not fair- I meant well, really I did! Or is my problem just that I'm trying to get the votes of a bunch of people who still believe the crap Karl Rove slung at me 8 years ago?

Romney: I'm a businessman, but not like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle, ok, maybe a little like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle...oh fine, a lot like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle. I hate subsidies....except all the good ones, like agriculture and energy. I hate unions....except all the good ones, like, well, all of them. I like the Constitution even less than Rudy Giuliani. But, hey, my health plan is kinda sorta market-based...that has to count for something, right?

Thompson: What's the big, I say what's the big idea? Man, I'm sleepy. I like free trade- I just wish I understood all those fancy words like "subsidy". Well Huck's a friendly fellow- he must know what he's talking about, so if he says subsidies are good, well, then who am I to argue? Wait, my buddy John says they're bad? Aww, shucks! Well, he still owes me for that campaign finance bill I helped him with a few years back. Hey, why isn't anyone hearing my jokes?

Paul: Lightning round? I get 30 seconds to answer a question? Sweet- that's more than I've had all day...oh, crap, they just want to know if I'll support Lord Combover over there- are they serious? At least I got to talk about the gold standard today, though. I like gold- it's shiny and stable....Am I the only one who wants to talk about monetary policy up here? Is Lord Combover suggesting that the Taliban had an advanced nuclear program that led to 9/11- ok, maybe not, but it sure as hell sounds that way!

Huckabee: I don't get all this talk about markets. Hey, can we talk about the FAIR tax some more? No? Ok, then. I like ethanol- if we subsidize it, it will magically become more efficient very quickly; it's obviously better than any other possible source of alternative energy like fuel cells, solar power, or nuclear power. So what if it costs more energy to produce than it can actually produce itself!

Tancredo: I don't like immigrants. I like free trade, but I don't like what Dubya does to it; he duped me into supporting fast track- I feel violated. But at least I'm an honest person, and I won't support just any asshole for President. That counts for something right?

Brownback: Can we talk about family values? I know this is about the economy, and I know I kinda sorta understand economics, but those subjects are icky to me. Still, I somehow know that having a third of the world's military spending is a good thing! Talking about this economics stuff makes me feel the same way I feel when I see Larry Craig in the Dirksen Building Men's Room. Iraq had something to do with 9/11 didn't it?

Hunter: "Deutscheland, Deutscheland, uber alles!" Screw Congress, screw economics. If I am President, my motto will be "L'Etat, c'est moi!"

Quick hits on the debate...

1. Analysis: This was the most boring piece of crap yet. For a good chunk of the candidates, their positions could be explained as: Free trade is the cornerstone of our economy...free trade means subsidies and tariffs, right?

Romney gave his least automoton-ish performance yet (a low bar, admittedly), and actually scored some points with me on health care- but otherwise, he continued to show that he is willing to support whatever is most politically convenient; he also had one of the only amusing lines of the debate (the "Law and Order" bit).

Of the "top-tier" candidates, only McCain showed both economic literacy and a willingness to respect his economic literacy- too bad most Republicans have an irrational hatred of him second only to their irrational hatred of a certain congressman from Texas.

Ron Paul had his weakest performance to date, though he was still obviously the most economically literate man on the stage; he also seemed rattled by the decision of the moderators to give him less time than just about anyone; the question about support for the ultimate nominee was outright demeaning, especially after the Q3 fundraising.

Thompson...ugh.....Well, he's an honest enough guy, and he has a modicum of economic literacy, but he just looks like a deer in the headlights half the time (he may have been the only person Nixon was ever right about). His "me too" on Huck's defense of ethanol subsidies was mind-numbingly stupid.

Tancredo actually sounded coherent about issues other than immigration for once, and even though I think he's dead wrong on immigration, you have to give the guy points for intellectual honesty.

Duncan Hunter....this guy passes for a conservative these days....how, exactly? Every word that came out of his mouth was the antithesis of limited government.

Giuliani probably came off as the most likable candidate today. Unfortunately, this may have obscured the complete lack of consistency in any of his positions.

Huckabee showed even more economic illiteracy than Hunter, although his talk about the FAIR tax always gives me a fleeting hope that maybe he has a clue.

Brownback put me to sleep as usual, though he clearly has a clue when it comes to economic issues- too bad he's running on a "family values" platform. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he's been working with Biden on the Three State Solution, which means that somewhere in that orthodoxy-filled head of his there is some capacity for intellectual rigor.

Rothbard, Bush, and National Security

An article in today's Washington Post suggests that the latest al Qaeda videotape was released earlier than it should have been by our Executive Branch to score some political points. In the process, they compromised a useful intelligence source that had been monitoring al Qaeda for years. The source: a private organization that, in this case, decided to turn their findings over to the government- on the condition the tape not be released before al Qaeda had officially made it publicly available, a condition that was not honored.

More than a little disturbing. The libertarian in me marvels at the ability of a privately run organization to do a better job of intelligence gathering on its own (read: no government contract) than the government's own intelligence agencies who have the advantage of being legally "authorized" to use torture with impunity, tap phonelines without warrants, etc. The libertarian in me also marvels at the ability of the government to completely and utterly destroy the advantage given to them by the hard work of this privately run organization.
I'm not a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, but somewhere, Murray Rothbard is having a great big chuckle.
(HT: Comments from Left Field, Will Bunch at attytood.com)

A few guidelines for Ron Paul supporters

Since I threw a bone to other Ron Paul supporters earlier this evening, it's time to stir the pot a little bit with a post I meant to make a few days ago:

Now that Ron Paul is getting his moment in the sun thanks to his Q3 fundraising, his campaign has an opportunity to start making an impact on the nomination race. However, that impact will be limited if a large number of outsiders continue to perceive him and his supporters as "kooks."


A couple of recent articles and discussions on other sites have discussed the need for Ron Paul supporters to be less agressive or risk losing coverage entirely. These discussions were not the result of some hatchet-job on Ron Paul, but were instead moderated by sites that have gone out of their way to be fair to him; their reward has been personal attacks, incoherent rants, spamming on unrelated topics, and more. Plenty of mainstream Republican sites have obviously been less friendly to Ron Paul; however, the treatment of these sites by some Ron Paul supporters has been responsible for a hardening of attitudes against Ron Paul and all of his supporters. Indeed, there are plenty of people on those sites who would have been potential supporters who were permanently turned off by the invective, spamming, and ranting. Part of me wonders if the silliness over the fundraising letter wasn't the end result of rants by supporters. In other words, the incoherence and nuisance factor of the ranting led to a perception that only incoherent crackpots would possibly support Ron Paul.

So, with that in mind, I would like to propose some guidelines for Ron Paul supporters to follow. I believe these guidelines, if followed, improve perceptions of Ron Paul and his supporters and stop the process of making enemies out of potential allies.

Don't:
1. Spamming: If you are posting a bunch of slogans without any substantive, logical arguments, then you are spamming. If you are cutting and pasting the same comment to multiple sites, you are spamming. If the article/post in question is not about Ron Paul and your post does not draw a logical connection to the subject of the article/post, you are spamming. This type of advocacy does not provide people with a logical reason to support Ron Paul, and creates the impression that Ron Paul supporters are automatons unable to make a logical argument of their own. If you don't agree with this definition of "spamming", then insert the word "trespassing" for "spamming" - the effect is the same: you are hurting Ron Paul's image and the image of other supporters.

2. Invective: Calling writers, columnists, bloggers, and commenters names, using terms like "fascist", "Brownshirt Republic," or accusing them of having a vendetta against Ron Paul for even the smallest perceived slight does nothing to advance the cause, and is a huge factor in discouraging additional coverage of Rep. Paul. The fact is that reasonable people can disagree with Rep. Paul on just about any issue; additionally, a reasonable person can discuss the nomination race without mentioning Ron Paul in every single article. When someone gets personally attacked for simply disagreeing with Ron Paul or not thinking Ron Paul is likely to be the nominee, they aren't going to be inclined to mention Ron Paul in a positive light (if at all) in the future.

3. Conspiracy theories: Whenever you make an argument about Ron Paul, you are associating the substance of that argument with Ron Paul- even if it is not his actual position. Worse, conspiracy theories come off as kookiness- if you really believe there is a conspiracy, the burden is on you to prove it, not on everyone else to disprove it. Examples of frequently stated conspiracy theories that are now being associated with Rep. Paul:

a. "9/11 was an inside job": the use of this theory by some supporters forces Rep. Paul to constantly waste valuable camera and press time on distancing himself from it. I also wish I didn't have to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in history.

b. "the polls are being manipulated to make Ron Paul's support seem smaller than it is": at most, there may be some unintentional undersampling. Yes, I'm aware that Rasmussen doesn't include Ron in its surveys- but no one of importance relies on Rasmussen.

c. "the media is trying to ignore Ron Paul": the media, like any other business, has finite resources. They will therefore only cover that which they think will be appealing to a large audience, and until Rep. Paul can show by traditional means that he has a deep level of support, the media is being rational by covering him less than others. The Q3 fundraising was a big step in the right direction, and has resulted in a lot of coverage from most outlets (with one obvious and notable exception).


4. Emotional responses to accusations. When someone actually does make a personal attack on Ron Paul, responding with a personal attack of your own does no one any good. Ron Paul is supposed to be the "peace candidate"- I don't see how you can advocate for peace while adopting a militant mentality; the two are a little contradictory. Emotional responses do nothing to persuade people. Think about it this way: if the original accusation against Ron Paul just made you angry and more passionate about Ron Paul, then what makes you think that a similar accusation by you will have a different effect? As for the argument personal attacks are justified as a response to personal attacks, and are really just self-defense: this is the same type of logic the President uses to justify torture- in other words, we're allowed to torture them because they have no qualms about torturing us. The problem with this logic, of course, is that it undermines your claim of moral superiority- you can't claim to be more morally just than your opponent while also claiming that your moral justness entitles you to act in the same way as your morally unjust opponent. This is what you would call doublethink.

Do:

1. Relevance: If you wish to talk about Ron Paul, then keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand. If the discussion only has to do with policy, then keep your comments limited to the policy at issue.

2. Grammar: If you want respect for your comments, then write in grammatically correct English. Writing in some bastardized pidgeon English with no capitals, no punctuation, and misspellings all over the place doesn't exactly give the impression you are worth listening to. If you have never learned proper writing skills due to the dumbing down of the English language through informal e-mail and text messaging.....then get a book on grammar.

3. Logic: If you want to write persuasively, then you must make a logical connection between your solution and the problem. For instance, simply shouting "Abolish the Fed, Restore the Republic, Vote 4 Ron Paul!" gives the reader no reason to vote for Ron Paul, and gives no explanation as to why the Fed should be abolished, why freedom must be restored, or how Ron Paul will accomplish either end. If you cannot fully explain the connection between the problem and the solution, then don't bother entering the discussion- you will just sound like an idiot. As a minimum baseline for commenting on policy questions generally, I would strongly recommend you take the American Civic Literacy Test. If you cannot score above 70% (and I'm being generous here), then you should not be discussing Constitutional issues or the free market economy with anyone- believe me, you will sound like an idiot if you do. For the record, I scored a 97%, so I'm not being remotely hypocritical here.

4. Calmness: Address arguments, not people. This makes what you have to say relevant to a much wider audience than just getting into a war of words with one or two people. It has the added benefit of making you sound like a rational human being.

In conclusion, there are plenty of rational Ron Paul supporters out there. Hopefully, some of the people who have frequently appeared irrational are even rational and just needed a little bit of guidance. But if you don't want to be labeled as crazy then don't give people a reason to think you're crazy.

Bush on Baseball

From ESPN.com, via Andrew Sullivan:
"I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right," - Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote.

Sully posted a reader's argument in defense of Bush on this today. Of course, Sully acknowledges knowing nothing about baseball, so I figured I'd counter the dissent. First of all, being a political scientist and a "pretty serious fan of baseball" does not make someone an authority on baseball. Being a political scientist is hardly relevant and being a serious fan of baseball isn't what you would call uncommon. Anyways, suffice it to say that the wild-card playoff system (combined with the 'roid fueled homer binge of the late '90s) was responsible for bringing baseball back from the dead after the 1994 strike. The system has made the season far more interesting, and this season it led to one of the most interesting final weeks you could possibly imagine.

Baseball now has its highest attendance figures in history- despite the trend towards building smaller parks. Revenues have quadrupled, as well. Now, of course I object to the subsidies that have helped fuel this, but the turnaround has been fun to watch as a whole. Now if they would only introduce a European-type relegation system with the minor leagues, baseball would be unstoppable.

Re: Ron Paul's Infamous Fundraising Letter

Certain elements of the blogosphere have been in stitches the last few days over this Ron Paul fundraising letter, including my friends over at Comments from Left Field. The general point of amusement has been the apparent nuttiness of this faux-handwritten letter, specifically its somewhat conspiratorial tone about the United Nations. While I can see why someone who is not a Ron Paul supporter would be amused, the letter really is no less extreme than fundraising letters I have seen from all sorts of political causes, both left and right. Below is a helpful explanation of why this ridicule is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

1. It's a fundraising letter sent to supporters, not much different in tone from most fundraising letters. Over the years, I have seen many fundraising letters from various political causes and campaigns, both right and left. My observations have been the result of experiences on Capitol Hill and on the fringes of the lobbying industry, as well as my wife's extensive experience in direct-mail fundraising. One of the keys to successful direct-mail fundraising campaigns is to make the recipient feel a sense of urgency to donate. In the political realm, this typically means making the reader believe that everything they believe in is under attack; this is especially true when the letter is targeted at people who have previously donated and are thus more likely to be concerned about the issues addressed in the letter. Compare, say, a NARAL letter with a Family Research Council letter, or a Brady Campaign letter with an NRA letter, and you will usually find a similar theme of, in essence, "they're out to get us." So, yes, the Ron Paul letter may take a tone reminiscent of black helicopters and conspiracy theories- but then again, so do fundraising letters for most political causes.

2. The faux handwriting has also attracted attention as creating something of a "Unabomber effect" in the words of Brendan Nyhan. But this is another important element of successful direct mail fundraising- making the recipient feel personally invested. Oftentimes, this element is achieved by making the letter a personal story that will pull at the heartstrings; in this case, though, the campaign decided to make the letter handwritten to achieve the recipient's personal investment. My understanding is that the apparently handwritten fundraising letter is one of the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to direct-mail fundraising; even the appearance of being on lined paper is something that "has been done before", according to my reliable source.

3. The substantive element that has achieved the most attention from the more "Progressive" critics (this blog reserves the word "liberal" for classical liberalism, which has little relationship to Progressivism) has been the portion that states the "American way of life is under attack," the "global elites are busy forming a North American Union", and "the UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax." Now, as I said above, there is a certain amount of hyperbole in these claims- but it is a type of hyperbole that runs through most political direct mail fundraising. I should also mention that I personally cringe whenever a politician assails "elites"- but I don't know many politicians who haven't used that line of attack before. As for the substantive points he raises:

a. "American way of life is under attack." It surprises me that Progressives would find this statement amusing, as it taps into essentially the same feelings that Progressives have about Bush thanks to things like Bush v. Gore, the torture memoranda, the wiretapping programs and bypassing of FISA, etc. Yes, I know that the letter does not specifically address those issues; however, the sentiment is pretty much the same.
b. "Global elites are busy forming a North American Union." This is obviously a reference to NAFTA and various agreements that Bush has entered into. Now, I happen to be a supporter of NAFTA and free trade agreements more generally, so this is a bit tougher for me to justify since I actually disagree with him here (full disclosure: Ron Paul is entirely in favor of free trade; he just thinks, with some reason, that NAFTA and other agreements don't actually achieve free trade) However, I understand where the sentiment comes from. Indeed, as this article shows, the Bush policy with respect to Mexico and Canada is to increase cross-border traffic and ultimately have a common tariff system. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to this type of setup; however, there is little doubt that it would decrease American sovereignty, so Paul's claim isn't really all that insane.
c. "The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax." The fact is, the firearms claim is pretty much true (see portion of report where they discuss concerns over increased manufacturing of "small arms", which means firearms; I've also had some personal work-related experiences with the issue). That said, it's not something the UN is likely to be successful on as long as the 2nd Amendment remains an individual, rather than a collective, right- still it is a goal of much of the UN. As for the concept of global taxes, it appears that the US is almost alone in its opposition of such a tax- without US opposition, there's a good chance a global tax would be a reality.

Hopefully, this post demonstrates why this whole thing is really much ado about nothing. People are certainly free to disagree with the implicit policy positions the fundraising letter takes (as I said, I personally disagree with him on NAFTA and the concept of a "North American Union", which would at least be a union of relatively liberalized countries as opposed to the UN, which has plenty of thug nations in it). Factually, however, his letter is correct, and the "state of emergency" tone of it is extremely common. In fact, there are many people in all parts of the political spectrum who actually believe we are in a state of emergency- they just tend to disagree about what the emergency is: Christian Conservatives believe gay marriage is going to destroy the family; disillusioned Republicans think that Bush (and, if elected, Hillary or Giuliani) is destroying the Constitution; Progressives think that Bush (and, if elected, any Republican) is destroying everything that made America good; anti-gun people think that pro-gun people want to see our cities destroyed by gun violence; and pro-gun people think that anti-gun people want to destroy their rights to own a gun; etc.

On the effectiveness of torture

I watched Bush's Homeland Security advisor Frances Townsend on Wolf Blitzer tonight getting grilled about the NYT report on torture. One of the most frustrating interviews I've ever seen; the number of non-denial denials was astounding, as was the self-righteousness. I couldn't help wondering about how a party founded on concepts of individual liberty and strict constitutionalism could have strayed so far.

Perhaps the most incredulous thing she said, though, was that only 30 or so of the "most dangerous" detainees have been subjected to the "harshest" interrogation methods. Despite this, she claimed that those same 30 prisoners had yielded 8500 intelligence reports. This means that on average each of these 30 prisoners gabbed about nearly 300 separate topics of interest to the GWOT, presumably under several months of "harsh" interrogation (and she did suggest that these interrogations got progressively worse over the course of a fairly lengthy period of time). For one person to have and provide that much information on that many closely related topics over that length of time, and be honest about it, seems to me a bit...implausible, and suggests something short of truthfulness on the detainee's part.

Not surprisingly, she did not give any figures as to how many of these reports were eventually corroborated, much less led to further detentions or convictions. I think it's safe to say, though, that her silence on that issue means that the number of corroborated reports is insignificant. To me, a lack of corroborated reports means that either: 1. The detainees were simply saying whatever they thought their interrogators wanted to hear in order to put an end to the "harsh" interrogation/torture; 2. The detainees had no intention of telling their interrogators what they actually knew - no matter what the consequences - out of hatred for their interrogators; or 3. Both 1 and 2.

Either way, the point is that not only does torture betray everything that this country is supposed to stand for, but that it is also completely ineffective. Indeed, it is actually counterproductive because it shifts valuable resources into pursuing false leads when those resources could be used on pursuing more reliable leads. Maybe the best way to think about it is to ask yourself how you would respond to torture in a situation where you: 1. Had already decided your cause was worth dying for; 2. Were held captive by the very group of people whose destruction you view as worth dying for; and 3. Were placed in a situation where every horrible thing you ever believed about those people appeared to be true.

Something in the tea leaves

The latest Newsweek poll in Iowa has some interesting information buried in it.
Support for HRC drops by about 25% when you factor in whether a respondent says they are a likely voter. Meanwhile, support for Obama and Richardson increases significantly when you factor this in, to the point that Obama goes from 6 point underdog to 4 point favorite.
On the Republican side, support for Huckabee and Ron Paul doubles or more when you factor in the likelihood of voting.
What this shows is that Hillary's support is disproportionately amongst people who don't really care too much about the primaries (and presumably aren't following politics closely). Similarly, support for Obama, Richardson, and especially Huckabee and Paul is disproportionately from people who do care about the primaries (and presumably are following politics closely).

What happened to the Republican Party?

Excerpt from a post I made a few minutes ago at Volkh (but which is more relevant here):

"When I worked on the Hill briefly in the 90's, Ron Paul was regarded by many Republicans as almost a folk hero who they wished they could emulate without paying at the ballot box. There was even loose talk amongst some staffers wondering why the LP didn't just fold into the Republican Party. Things have changed so much now, though, that people like Bob Barr and Dick Armey (both poster children for 1990s social conservatism) have joined the libertarian movement, and are now regarded by the Right as whacky leftists. The number of disaffected Republicans who were considered the "establishment" 7 years ago is staggering: Barr, Armey, Christine Whitman, Colin Powell, William Buckley, Bruce Fein, Richard Viguerie, the Chafee family, Bob Smith, Paul O'Neill, Chuck Hagel, Sen. Webb, and dozens more."

While we're at it, we may as well give credit to the original defector, Jim Jeffords, even if he wasn't exactly an "establishment" type at the time. Some others worth adding: George Will (can't believe I left him off the original list) Bruce Bartlett, David Kuo, Andrew Sullivan, Gen. Abizaid, John Dean, Alan Greenspan, Paul Kagan, Matthew Dowd. I would also consider adding Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and Tucker Carlson. Admittedly, some of these were never necessarily establishment Republicans, but they show the broad spectrum of conservatives, libertarians, and "moderate Republicans" who have suddenly found themselves abandoned by the Republican Party. I would love any additions to this list.

Ultimately, one has to wonder just how many prominent defectors it will take before the remaining Republicans get out of their denial and: 1. stop claiming that the defectors are just "wimps" or "RINOs"; and 2. realize that they've changed the character of the Republican Party from a collection of various types of conservatives and constitutionalists to a group that exists for the sole purpose of expanding the power of the federal government. The good news is that if the remaining establishment doesn't wake up to these facts, a continuing stream of defections will cause the Party to collapse and a new major party to arise from the ashes, much as the Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whigs.

A better approach to global warming?

It occurs that perhaps libertarians and free market conservatives have taken the wrong approach to global warming. It seems libertarians and conservatives have decided that opposition to government environmental intervention requires a belief that global warming is a myth.

The problem with this, of course, is that it requires people who are essentially focused on economics and classical liberal political thought to debate on issues of natural science. This is turf that most libertarians are ill-suited to fight on. It may be that there is legitimate debate within the scientific community as to whether global warming is real; however, this debate is one best left to the professionals whose job it is to debate it. The fact is that, to the extent libertarians wish to engage "Progressives" (many of whom, by the way, are no better educated on the topic than the average libertarian) on issues of whether global warming is real, that debate can only result in a battle of statistics. This battle of statistics is not one that libertarians can win, if only because "Progressives" have more scientists to cite, and, frankly, have more invested in the debate. In fact, arguing with a Progressive about the existence of global warming is similar to arguing with a member of the religious right about whether the Bible prohibits homosexuality - whether you're right or not, they just know more statistics about the topic than you. This is especially true when you consider that statistics can often be used to prove or disprove just about anything (my all-time favorite example being the correlation between the rate of crime in Central Park and ice cream cone sales in Central Park).

Now, this is not to say that libertarians should completely abandon the global warming debate - quite the opposite, in fact. The fact is that while scientists have (and even deserve) more respect on things like climate models, global temperatures, etc., they aren't particularly well-trained in the disciplines of economics, policy, and law (similarly, your average fundamentalist preacher deserves more respect on issues of what the Bible says or doesn't say, but is completely out of his element when discussing the civil law and economics) . These disciplines, of course, are areas that libertarians know quite well, but others do not (see the now-infamous Civic Literacy Test for proof; I got a 58 out of 60, by the way). Indeed, rather than get bogged down in debating the science of global warming, libertarians can use the global warming debate as an opportunity to advance understanding of how and why free markets work. Specifically, libertarians would be best served to be officially agnostic on the issue of global warming, while explaining why free markets are better suited to solve the problem - if it is real - than big government and international treaties. Perhaps we could even demonstrate how, to the extent global warming is real, it is the result of (or at least exacerbated by) excessive government interventionism.

For instance, most of the world's most polluted cities, according to a recent report by an environmental group, are in states that until very recently (if at all) had very little respect for private property rights. We might also try to explain how stricter environmental controls in technologically advanced nations will only push manufacturing even further to nations with not only no environmental controls, but also far less pollution-reducing technology. We might also explain how minimum wage laws and labor unions exacerbate the problem by further pushing manufacturing jobs to countries with less ability to control carbon emissions. Better still, we should demonstrate how private industry will be far more likely to come up with solutions to environmental problems than will the government and how government's "occupying the field" in this respect actually discourages innovative solutions. Importantly, when government makes environmental policy, it does so in ways that must have a negative effect on the rest of their economy; but when private industry is allowed to create ecological innovation, the effect on the rest of the economy is entirely positive - more, higher paying jobs, and ultimately, production of eco-friendly energy that is cheaper than our current energy supply. Finally, if global warming is real, then consumers will have a high demand for eco-friendly products (see, e.g., the huge demand for hybrid cars); high demand for a product is the best incentive for private entrepreneurs to search for ways of creating that product.

Indeed, one could only imagine how far along the world would be on a technological solution if so many government-funded scientists weren't being paid to conduct additional studies to reinforce the belief in global warming, but were instead funded by private industry seeking to find ways of profiting on ecologically friendly technology.

Update on China Import "Scandal"

In light of today's news that Mattel has taken responsibility for the majority of the toy recalls as being design flaws, I wonder if Lou Dobbs will take back his comments that this case shows why intense government regulation of imports is necessary (and that free marketers and libertarians are thus "idiotic"). For some reason, I'm not holding my breath.

Key quote:

On Friday, Debrowski acknowledged that "vast majority of those products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers."
Lead-tainted toys accounted for only a small percentage of all toys recalled, he said, adding that: "We understand and appreciate deeply the issues that this has caused for the reputation of Chinese manufacturers."
In a statement issued by the company, Mattel said its lead-related recalls were "overly inclusive, including toys that may not have had lead in paint in excess of the U.S. standards.
"The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled toys complied with the U.S. standards," the statement said.

In other words, this was not a case where free international trade resulted in harm to US consumers. Instead, it was a case where a manufacturer had a poor product design that resulted in a marginally higher risk of injury from the product's use. As a result, Mattel pulled products with the potential for such a marginally higher risk off of the shelves. To the extent any injuries were caused as a result, Mattel will almost certainly be sued under the common law; as long as government regulations and protectionist laws don't get in the way, Mattel will then be forced to make the injured parties whole (to the extent possible of course). In other words, this is probably going to be a case that shows how the free market works - not how it failed.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that, had Mattel chosen to manufacture these toys in the US, the potential problems would have been even worse because of the higher labor costs. Higher labor costs would mean that Mattel would have to cut the cost of its raw materials in order to meet its price point- this means smaller parts made with more dangerous materials. Even if Mattel did not use smaller parts and more dangerous materials, it would have had less incentive to conduct the recall operation since the lower profit margins would increase the marginal cost of the recall.