Wait, Déjà Vu Anyone?

In case you have been out of the loop, here is a quick summary of the political events that have occurred on the right side of the aisle these last few days:

1. Elections Occur on Tuesday, Rand Paul takes the Republican nomination for Senate over Trey Greyson, who was “favored by the establishment.” 

2. Antiestablishmentarian ‘conservatives’, libertarians and others celebrate the coming of the populist resurgence in American politics. 

3. Rand Paul is in trouble.

Yes, Rand Paul is taking some heat for his stance on myriad issues (most from before most of us at TheLobbyist were born) including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act among others.  Now, my link above is to the Salon and the piece(s) written about these matters, which may not be completely fair because they do not have a knack for being impartial if you get my drift.  Nevertheless, it is the best way to better understand your views; by taking in and understanding the most penetrating criticisms levied against you or your beliefs and learning from them (Madison’s contributions to the Federalist Papers were best at this in my opinion). 

I am not going to get into this Federal government vs State government, civil rights vs. libertarian, right vs. wrong stuff though.  I want to point out a coincidence I noticed:

At the liberaltarian dinner, many of the liberals persuasively argued that the pool of freedom isn’t fixed such that if government takes more, then there is necessarily less for the people. Many government interventions expand freedom. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was opposed by libertarians like Barry Goldwater as an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights. Yet it was obvious that African Americans were suffering tremendously at the hands of state and local governments. If the federal government didn’t step in to redress these crimes, who else would?

This was written by Bruce Bartlett almost exactly a year ago.  I am not quite sure where Mr. Bartlett stands these days, probably more as a liberaltarian as a matter of fact; but I always enjoy a good coincidence.  Especially when the 1964 CRA was a point that Will Wilkinson at CATO also delved further into:

I think part of the problem is that if you hold up the Civil Rights Act as an example of libertarian success, most libertarians will deny that you are one. I think both the Civil Rights Act and the women’s movement did in fact lead to tremendous net increases in liberty. I think Bruce makes an excellent point. Federal intervention, while certainly limiting freedom of association and trumping more local jurisdictions, resulted IMO in an overall increase in freedom. That many traditional libertarian conservatives, such as Goldwater, seem to have been willing to sacrifice a great gain in overall freedom in order to maintain status quo levels local self-rule seems to me to betray a commitment to ancient ideals of liberty as community self-government in conflict with the modern idea of liberty as freedom from coercion.

All of this, a great dialectic between libertarians and liberaltarians, nearly a year before this current Rand Paul situation hit the fan. 

-rj

Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

FORD IS… JOHN GALT?

There was a glimmer of real Hope yesterday for those of us that are more inclined to study the stocks and markets and profit margins: you know, libertarians. ?This was not the sort of “Hope” that can only be dispensed by your local politician and his/her district office, or the kind of “Hope” that represents the mere spinning?of facts to fit the administration’s particular world view that day to advance their agenda. ?

FORD… F-ed On Race Day, Found On Road Dead, Fix Or Repair Daily, F-er Only Runs Downhill…

Well, Ford Motor Company was the one American car company to politely decline salvation from the Messianic Administration and chose to atone for their own sins instead of being saved by the grace of… government. ?Ford Motor (F) posted a nearly $1billion profit for the third quarter. ?Ford Motors is doing things the American way, the rugged individualist way, the way that fathers teach their sons is the best way to get things done: Do It Yourself! ?Sometimes people need help, I am aware; but most of us have seen those good old mafia movies and shows, and getting help from the Obama administration seems to have similar consequences.

It is safe to say, I am a bit biased… my first car was a ’68 Ford Bronco, my last truck a 2004 Ford Ranger (I had a ’91 Volvo, which is now?owned by Ford if that counts for something). ?And my understanding has always been that Chevy was Latin for… feces.

?

-rj

The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn’t Help Conservatives

Monday was a very long day here in New York City.? The Personal Democracy Forum Conference busted out of the gate bright and early and never seemed to slow.? The conference and its attendees are a cornucopia of ideas and innovation.? It certainly feels as if the applications built for and during the Obama campaign have spurred an entire new focus in the political realm.? I feel like I’m a fly on the wall of the office that invented grassroots mailers.? It certainly seems that we are witnessing the initial stages of a new era in politics.

Six month from now things will be very interesting.? The first campaigns since the 2008 presidential race will begin cranking their engines.? It will be the first big test as well.? Letting all of us evaluate who “got it” after the last go round.

One has to understand that when they attend these sorts of events that there is certainly a goal of objectivity.? The reason for attending is to discover the areas in which politics and technology are intersecting.? How is technology, or possibly more specifically, the Internet changing politics?? Are these changes creating the evaporation of results from the previous models?? If so, how do we incorporate these new tools into our area of politics to create new successful models?? That’s what we are hear to discover.

The reality though is that people that are passionate about anything can’t keep it from seeping out even when they are trying to hold back.? There is nothing wrong with this.? I take zero issue with individuals who wear their heart on their sleeve.? At least it’s out there.

But at some point a balance issue develops.? If panels are mostly chaired by a certain orientation of political enthusiast, the point of view is always the same.? If the audience to which they are speaking is of the same enthusiasm, then they are preaching to the choir.? The cheers and hardly applause comes because of political orientation and alignment and not because all political technology enthusiast share the same goals.

We don’t.

Case in point was the fine display of two sheep being led on stage for the final panel of the day.? The sheep, in the form of two teleco representatives, had their achille’s slit so that they couldn’t escape and then were promptly ritually massacred by the Picadores Josh Silver.? Silver, well known in tech policy circles for avoiding any concerns or facts outside of his own talking points was suburb in his beat down.? I honestly couldn’t tell if the teleco reps were ill prepared or just trying to play the saint for the audience, the obvious antagonist.

But why was this happening?? Silver has a particular motivation and a goal, and not one with which all parties in the tech policy community would agree.? Why was no one with a differing point of view sitting on this panal?? Not to defend the telecos, but to ask questions from a differing foundation, or to call Silver’s bluff.? Where was Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Adam Thierer who started Technology Liberation Front?? Where was Timothy B. Lee, CATO fellow and Ars Technica contributor? (Who in my humble opinion has hands down written the best scholarly explanation of network neutrality available.? Which is mighty humble of me, if I do say so, considering I’ve written on it myself.)

I did appreciate hearing the audience gleefully suck up every drop the FCC commissioner Blair Levin had to say; especially the part where he told us that they were creating a plan.? Really? The plan he is referring to of course is the National Broadband Strategy which comes due in February of 2010.? What hardly anyone knows though is that the US Department of Agriculture who has used the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) division to improve broadband distribution in the past has been awarded funds for distribution from the stimulus.? RUS plans to distribute its roughly $2.5 billion by September 30th, 2009.? The National Telecommunications and Information Administration?who received the bulk of the broadband stimulus funds?will hand out their dollars in three phases occurring Spring of 2009, Fall of 2009, and Spring of 2010.

Spend first, formulate your plan later, Mr. Levin?? Sort of seems counterproductive to planning at all.

Conservatives are boned at PDF 2009.? There is certainly not enough representation amongst panel members.? Some of this is absolutely not the fault of Personal Democracy Forum.? We are under a liberal Administration, and that administration appoints liberal bureaucrats.? An invite to Robert McDowell or Meredith Attwell Baker would have been nice.? Maybe they were invited, and turned it down.? This too is a possibility.? At least Cas Sunstein with his Fairness Doctrine-esque “electronic sidewalks” for the Internet isn’t present.

I’m not laying the wood to PDF.? Yes, from initial indications it doesn’t appear that the ideological sides are well balanced, and possibly they don’t know where to look.? The real trouble however is the attendees.

The Personal Democracy Forum doesn’t help conservatives.? Because conservatives aren’t there to be helped.

The numbers are simply overwhelming.? I’d guestimate that the attendance is somwhere close to one thousand.? I’d also venture to say that there are roughly five conservatives there.? And I’m incorporating the one libertarian I saw with a Ron Paul button.

I’m dismayed.

I know these folks are out there.? I’ve written about them.? So where are they?? After this past Fall why aren’t ogles of people from the right side of the aisle on Capitol Hill all over this event?? Did the speakers shy them away?? I don’t really think so.? I’m a strong conservative-libertarian, and have been for years.? And while there are a few people in the speaker list that irk me on the average day, I wouldn’t let them keep me from attending when the majority of lectures and panels are simply focused on an examination of content in some form, a discussion of getting content to an audience, or about tools to help you be more efficient and productive.

This is subject matter that conservatives need to hear.? Maybe PDF needs to market themselves more to conservative circles on the web?? Possibly all conservatives on the web are poor and couldn’t afford to attend?? It could be that conservatives don’t fit in with all the Apple fan boys present at the conference.? If there were more Dell owners then it might have been more balanced.

All thought provoking questions.

These are just initial reactions.? I’m sure I will be thinking more about it into the second day of the event as I look for reasons for the paltry representation.

Secretly though, I think the liberals in the crowd are ecstatic.? Why wouldn’t they be?? It’s like someone serving up a box of free gold to anyone who shows up at the box and takes the gold.? And only liberals are showing up, so they get to take home all the gold.

You can’t teach a dead dog new tricks.? And you certainly can’t expect to win a fight you don’t show up to.

Very much looking forward to Tuesday.

-nick

I hope you’re happy…

I hope you?re happy. The populists who write letters and e-mails to these AIG workers threatening to kill them, to cause harm to their families, etc. This populism transcends mere ideological labels, and I will address that matter a little later. I wanted to elucidate for you all an article in the New York Times Opinion section entitled Dear A.I.G., I Quit! In the letter, we hear the cries from a gentleman who did nothing but work to get where he got, only to have his character and integrity viciously attacked by the media, by faux Conservative populists, and by the members of Congress that allowed for the bonuses in Federal legislation. This is a man, an American, a human being with a family. Such situations remind me of the scene in HBO?s John Adams series when they demonstrate the atrocity of tar-and-feathering. When John Adams asks of his cousin if this is justified, is it justified to ruin the lives of people and trounce the rule of law (grounded in either civil institution or provided by Providence, do unto others??) because they are being guided by their unbounded passions.

I ask that everyone read the words of this man, and actually attempt to understand both sides of this situation before continuing down the road with pitchforks and torches in hand. I am not condoning the bonuses for all of the individuals involved, but I would be much more satisfied knowing that I knew the true ramifications of the populist rhetoric were I to perpetuate it on any medium I could.

There is a dangerous faction taking hold of our dear philosophy. They do not extol a true strength in numbers, but they are the most bombastic wing. The people who forward Alex Jones e-mails, the people who update their Facebook statuses with constant hatred and vitriol: CONSTANT! How did we feel when people were disrespectful to President Bush? We dismissed the liberals who made their nefarious comments about President Bush?s administration as overzealous and classless. Now we are acting just as those we held contempt for years earlier. I do not agree with anything about President Obama, but I will address him as such and grant him the proper title of which my country men bestowed upon his being. He is our President, get over it. Don?t like his policies, don?t like his past, don?t like him; but act with candid class nonetheless. We are not going to advance our cause if we allow these intellectually incompetent buffoons speak for Conservatism as a whole. Theirs is a philosophy that borders anarchy.

I want to go back to the Facebook statuses. These have now become billboards for the extraordinary. People posts hundreds of statuses forwarding the most random and sometimes obtrusive indictments. If you want to believe in FEMA camps, if you want to believe in the New World Order and the Illuminati (who were very much libertarians of their day), then go ahead. But people are posting these YouTube clips as sole testimony of unadulterated fact! Animosity runs rampant and ?conservatives? are forwarding and continuing these messages of distrust and hate.

In the end, I just want people to calm down for a second. I agree with the Tea Parties, I work where I see first hand what is going on with the economy, and day after day I have to try and ameliorate situations where people face their worst fears: losing a home, a job, their health. Acting like rabid dogs sicking the mail-man because he symbolizes the government is not going to advance our cause. We have to take a deep breath and articulate our philosophy, because it is the best one. We have to win over moderates not by becoming more moderate as Mr. Frum advocates, but by relating to the moderates by showing we understand how government works, we understand the problems people face, and we know how to run a better and more efficient government. How is someone supposed to trust a ?Conservative? Huey Long, who babbles from his pulpit about hating the government, that they can run the government better? I want to be reactionary as well, but sometimes when we start to get out of hand, we need to sit, count to seven, grab a handful of Jelly Bellys and just think.

-rj

CPAC Is Off And Running

The Conservative Political Action Conference got rolling today. It will run through Saturday evening and feature many prominent conservative thinkers and also up and comers in the movement speaking on the main stage or at various break out groups or panels.
Regrettably I will not be able to attend, as I am making my way back to the great state of Georgia to perform my duties as a groomsman in one of my best friends weddings (awww).
Fortunately, many of my colleagues, including one of our own staff will be in attendance, and hopefully we will get some updates from them to post up here on the site.

-nick