Republicans finally object when their own party comes after them.

I was fascinated by the e-mail response received by Radley Balko in response to his Fox News column regarding the Internet gambling bill.  Most of the e-mails printed were from Republicans/conservatives who were planning on staying home or voting Democrat because of the online gambling bill.   A couple of samples:

This bill is a disgrace. They ban online poker, while state lotteries and online horse racing wagers are exempt. Does Bill Frist really think we don’t realize Harrah’s was his 13th largest campaign contributor? The moral argument holds no weight. This is hypocrisy at its finest. A lifetime Republican supporter, I will no longer be backing them in ‘06 and ‘08. This is an all-out attack against American values.

Another:

I admit, once the bill passed, I immediately decided that was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and vowed to not vote for Republicans in the upcoming elections (maybe never).

I’ve been a Conservative Republican for so long, but the Conservative movement has changed, and this bill being passed through is a huge hint to that happening. Can you imagine, ten years ago, a Republican Conservative wanting to pass a bill that disallows you to do something perfectly legal? To legislate morality? Republican Conservatives used to be opposite of that, now they have changed for the worse.

I will vote Democrat in response.

Having read all the e-mail responses, it strikes me as one of the common themes that this particular cross section of Republicans seems to believe that The Republican Party has only recently become a party for legislating morality. It think it is more accurate to say that they are finally objecting now that the Republican Party is legislating an activity on moral grounds that impacts them directly, whereas before such moral high-horsedness was always against groups they didn’t care about, such as “teh gays.”

It’s funny, what motivates people in elections. While acknowledging that the online poker crowd is probably not the world’s largest demographic, could it be that the Christian Right that leveraged the gay marriage issue in 2004 has finally pushed a bit too far and caused an opposite effect? We won’t know until the elections are over, but it’s an interesting issue.

Does anyone in the military talk to each other? At all?

I don’t mean that to sound unduly harsh, but what the hell do you make of two different stories coming within a couple weeks of each other where one says we’re planning to have current troops levels in Iraq until 2010 (another four years) and another saying Iraqi security forces will be able to take control of Iraq in 12-18 months.  CNN’s front page attributes Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, as saying that within 12-18 months Iraqis can take over with minimal U.S. support.

I suppose Casey could be using a “best case” approach while the planners are using a “not-as-best-case” approach, but do you ever get the feeling that people just aren’t communicating well with each other?

Just when I think I can no longer be stunned, really stunned.

Hat tip to Radley Balko at The Agitator (and congratulations on the new job, man, that’s great) for pointing me to this NYT piece, which I really just want you to read before going to my comments below.

Done reading?

Are you livid yet?  Has your face reached unprecedented hues of red and/or purple?  Maybe you’re already so cynical that this does not surprise you.  I have to admit, this stunned me.  The most basic, the most rudimentary delineation between the major Muslim factions in Iraq, and many of our decision-makers, many of our stakeholders in the political/intelligence process cannot explain it.

I am a government skeptic, a libertarian.  Even so, I admit I have been proceeding under the assumption that our government had some base-level understanding of the political and religious cultures of the Middle East.  It just would not have occurred to me that people entrusted with such power could be so ignorant.  How the hell can anyone expect anything more than one foreign policy disaster after another if we are so utterly clueless?

So many people portray what we are doing in the Middle East as ideologically simple.  How far ahead are we if we deposed a secular dictator in Iraq and replace it with an Iranian-friendly theocracy?  Why is it true that Saddam and Osama were not friendly with each other?  What are the objectives of the different insurgent factions in Iraq?  These questions and more (that are important to know the answer to if you are, oh, say, you are a member of Congress involved in foreign affairs, or if you are in intelligence in virtually any capacity, etc.)  you can’t even begin to answer until you start educating yourself as to the different sects of Islam, and start learning the history of the region.

Just reading that story is a surreal experience.  It should outrage anyone, especially when you realize that the lives of young American men and women are being extinguished in part from our amazing lack of understanding.

I guess it’s all ok, as long as I’m getting mine.

CNN reported poll results today that half of all Americans believe Congress is corrupt.  A couple of quick points:

Reducing the size and scope of government reduces the potential for abuse of the political system.

The Congressional system of seniority and politics rewards incumbents and provides an artificial disincentive for constituents to vote out their incumbent Congressperson.

The “benefits” associated with such a system seem to revolve around how much pork can be shovelled back to their home districts, see, e.g., Senator Stevens from Alaska.

Some people have proposed that the answer be term limits.  Unfortunately term limits won’t do muchanything to solve the core problem, which is the size and scope of government that gives rise to opportunities for corruption.  Imposing term limits shifts a ridiculous amount of power to the established bureaucracy away from the elected representatives and provides a further buffer from accountability.

You know, some days I really see why libertarians gravitate towards humor when making political points.  Having to literally explain the basics, the obvious, on a routine basis just gets so grindingly old after awhile.  As the old saying goes, if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry.

I am besieged by liberals.

Apparently I hit a nerve in a couple of liberals upset with my response to Kos. As I indicated in my first response their advantage in such an exchange is their seemingly endless supply of available time. Comparatively, my available time to engage in such banter is much more limited. Nonetheless most of their stuff is pretty easily shot down so I’ll take a stab at a couple of points then maybe leave the rest to commentators.

Schoedingers-Cat-In-Pandoras-Box said:

The FACT IS you can’t DEFEND your utopian nonsense against real world examples of low tax countries in the Third World.

I can most certainly show examples where libertarian principles in practical application benefit their societies. Take, for example, Estonia, whose former prime minister was recently honored by Cato for using libertarian-style economics to help Estomia recuperate from the economic shackles of Russia and the U.S.S.R.

As for the “Third World” countries that suffer so badly under libertarian principles, unfortunately no specific example was given other than indicating that such places exist on three continents, so it’s a bit hard to discuss specifics.

One thing Schoedingers-Cat-In-Pandoras-Box seems to confuse throughout his ramble is libertarianism and anarchy. Libertarianism does not mean there will be neither laws nor government enforcement agencies. Libertarianism does not mean corporate governance. It’s true, libertarians by and large aren’t big fans of anti-trust law, but with regard to the true infringement on the rights of others–pollution, fraud and the like, there certainly is room within the libertarian framework for accountability against those that would so trample the rights of individuals. Once you build accountability into the law, private actors become much better at enforcement through civil court or possibly private attorney general-style enforcement of libertarian principles of rights than government bureaucrats. Schoedingers-Cat-In-Pandoras-Box deplores bribery and claims it is rampant in libertarian systems, but once again that is a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarian philosophy for a problem created by liberal regulatory programs. Bureaucrats are and always have been much more susceptible to bribery than the constituents they purport to serve, because only constituents are truly vested in the problem. There are many insulations to a bureaucrat who procrastinates, many places to hide misconduct, many ways for corporations to gain influence. Schoedingers-Cat-In-Pandoras-Box’s answer is . . . more regulators! Libertarians, in contrast, advocate removing the susceptible link whenever possible as the true individuals in interest are much less susceptible the same weaknesses. Really, it takes very little to research actual libertarian positions, which Schoedingers-Cat-In-Pandoras-Box clearly has no intent to do.

So it goes with a lot of his (or her) points. The shots are so broad that it would take far more time than is warranted trying to dispute each of them for someone who has no interest in learning or understanding.

Another repeat customer to my thread, throwthemtothelions said:

You misunderstood my post.

I said nothing about the “libertarian view of slavery”. The point on slavery at the end of my post was it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that invented the slave trade. And, it was government that ended it! The private sector NEVER would have addressed the issue by themselves. The private sector view in both the North & the South was laissez faire with regard to slavery and slave owners.

Sorry, my point went over your head!

Actually, the point did not go over my head. My point was exactly, well, on point. You put this paragraph forth as if libertarianism is anarchy, with no laws. Libertarianism, if you read up on it, is actually very much against such concepts as involuntary servitude. Libertarianism is not about allowing private sector interests to violate the rights of others by using force to compel their service. A libertarian government would certainly never endorse slavery and I challenge you to find a libertarian group that takes such a position. A libertarian government would use force to prevent such suppression and hold those responsible accountable, so yes, government force is an appropriate response to slavery. Just because the government at that time wasn’t initially libertarian with respect to slavery is not an indictment of libertarianism. It’s quite baffling that you would even imply that.

And to mention Enron . . . just wow. The typical government over-reaction to Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which wouldn’t likely have prevented the major financial scandals of the time, is costing the U.S. economy billions upon billions for little or no real benefit, and is depressing venture capital and preventing promising companies from going public due tot he ridiculous costs of compliance. Way to punish the entire economy, millions of employees, for the acts of a few bad apples and in particular Enron, which had a losing business model regardless.

I would encourage liberals coming here to be venomous at least investigate and research actual libertarian positions rather than put up straw men to knock down. Take a look at Cato’s policies site, for example, and refute some of their specific proposals. It’s not nearly as easy as taking unresearched broad-swipe passes at positions that half the time were never libertarian positions to start with. Kind of a cheap way to debate, really.

Maybe Shortbus is the new Deep Throat

Nick Gillespie wants us to know that he was thinking of couples porn while reading Kos’ lead essay at this month’s Cato Unbound.  I have only one request–if at any point during reading one of my entries you start thinking of porn of any kind, please do not say so.  Anywhere.  Unless you’re an attractive woman.  Who doesn’t know my wife.

Nick’s points are all well-stated and well-researched, and largely reflect the libertarian blogosphere’s reaction to Kos, Bruce and Harold that’s already out there.  Except that Nick must have a “fluffer” to help him with the huge amount of linkage he puts into his post.

I just had a couple of (non-porn) thoughts while reading Nick’s post.  First, should libertarian Democrats become a fully realized demographic within the Democratic party, are Democrats such as Kos and Bruce and Harold fully aware of the challenges of incorporating their ideology into the Democratic platform without forming a schism within the party?  To that end I take some exception to Nick’s comment:

There’s little doubt that the rise of libertarian Democrats would be a great thing, or at least an interesting political development. It would be especially beneficial for the Democratic Party itself . . .  

Maybe the GOP can get away with tossing aside “Goldwater” conservatives if their base is tight enough with the Religious Right, but if the Democratic Party becomes ideologically split over the appropriate scope of government that would be a major issue to overcome.  Given all of the differences Nick points out, is it realistic to think that anything resembling a cohoerent party message can be put together?  And isn’t a lack of vision one of the things Democrats are criticized for? 

The other thought I had is that Democrats really need to do a better job taking their big picture ideas and determining whether they are really compatible with the actual programs and proposals being put forth.  Here Nick did an excellent job of taking the broad and vague platitudes and saying “Hey, wait a minute, aren’t you guys actually proposing  . . . .”  Somebody in the leadership of the Democratic Party needs to reverse engineer their own platform–don’t start with the big picture ’cause it’s plain the big picture stuff isn’t compatible with what’s actually going on in Congress.  Start with all the programs and policies proposed by Democrats over the last six years and say “what do these things have in common,” and keep backing upwards from there until they’ve figured out what their big picture themes actually are.  If they’re not happy with what they see, you can’t just change the big picture words, you’ve got to start at the bottom for any alteration of theme at the macro level to ring true.

Oh, and here’s Shortbus.  I don’t expect it to make it out to our corner of small town middle America.  However, just to close the loop, if at any point during this post, or any post on this site, you started thinking about porn, I recommend keeping it to yourself, with the hereinabove-mentioned caveats.

Cato Unbound Case Study #1: How not to persuade libertarians.

I am beginning to believe that libertarians will indeed vote Democrat in November because, as is occasionally pointed out, complete government gridlock is as close to libertarian principles are we are likely to get on a national level. This is something libertarians can figure out all on their own without any help. Really, we can.

I am, however, completely certain that the Democrats beating the libertarian drum at Cato Unbound this month have no idea what it takes to persuade a libertarian and are doing nothing to attract libertarian voters to the Democratic ticket this November.

The latest example is Harold Meyerson’s reaction essay, and the first thing I want to say is that the theme of my critique is not specific to Harold’s essay but carries through to the other essays from this month by Democrat drum-beaters (for purposes of this post we’ll call them Kos, Bruce and Harold).

And here’s what I don’t understand–each seems to have one or two decent thoughts about why it’s useful for libertarians to vote Democrat this November, at which point Kos and Bruce and Harold are immediately struck with amnesia about why they are writing in this month’s Cato Unbound at all as they proceed to attack libertarianism and prop up Democrat proposals, principles (such as they are) and ideals. I’m just at a complete loss as to why any of these writers think this is a good idea. Isn’t it enough to make a simple, effective point and go home? Do any of them really believe that they are going to convert libertarians to Democrats at Cato Unbound? That we are going to see the miracle that is the Democratic Party? If so, pass a generous amount around of whatever we’re smoking, boys!

The further they dig, the more they reveal the basic incompatibilities between modern liberalism and libertarianism, the more they themselves show why anything more than a temporary, gridlock-inducing alliance for this election cycle is a bad idea. If the purpose was to encourage anything more, it is failing miserably. Someone on their side needs to grab them, shake them vigorously, and say “SHUT UP ALREADY!”

The reality is that libertarians are going to get partway through Harold’s essay nodding their head, then go “WTF?? Ah yes, this is exactly why I’m not a Democrat.” At this point I’m torn between pointing out the various slams of libertarians and libertarianism in Harold’s essay vs. breaking down some of his lefty “logic,” so I think I’m just going to satiate my desire for the former by pulling some bit quotes to point out how condescending Harold is towards libertarians:

As for pure libertarianism, by denying a role for the state and dismissing the threat to liberties increasingly posed by the dominant corporate sector, it is about as germane to the American future as Trotskyism.

It is to point out that regulation is often the only way to protect encroachments on individual freedoms.

They may be civil libertarians and to some degree social libertarians, but they’re not economic libertarians. And for good reason: Economic libertarianism has never been more preposterous.

Ultimately, the Democrats aren’t going to proceed very far down the libertarian road, for one simple reason that’s far more pragmatic than philosophic: It doesn’t lead anywhere.

I think those pretty much speak for themselves, eh? But just in case they don’t, here’s my general, all-purpose libertarian response to Harold’s dismissiveness: Get bent. Now, to address specifically some of Harold’s points:

To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn’t sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can’t find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck. In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants.

Of course a bank that doesn’t sell data is going to be at a disadvantage, nobody said the market is required to offer you a banquet of options all at the same price! Here’s a market flash for you Harry: sometimes, just sometimes, in life you have to make decisions that involve paying more for features you want. Being a libertarian is about placing value on things that are important to you and being willing to make financial choices based on your priorities. And if not enough people value banks not selling their data off such that banks universally do, maybe you stuff your money in your mattress, or put it in a safety deposit box, or whatever, but don’t come to us trying to sell us on the idea that the government is better at determining what I should think is important than I am, and you certainly should not be entitled to reduce my options by forcing banks not to sell information. Maybe I value the reduction in the cost of banking more than I believe there is a risk regarding the sale of my data. My choice.

For the dominant social fact in America today is this: The corporate safety net is fast disappearing. Risk has been transferred to the individual—a decision in which individuals, as such, haven’t had a say (though their apprehensions about privatizing Social Security did nip that idea in the bud). Corporate pensions are vanishing and 401(k)s don’t provide equivalent retirement security. Fewer and fewer companies are offering medical benefits, even though corporate profits are at a 50-year high as a percentage of GDP. Companies that persist in offering such benefits are placed at a disadvantage when their competitors don’t.

If employees place a high value on such benefits, then the best employees will work for the companies in a market that provides them the greatest benefit (according to their priorities and values and balanced by the demand for people of similar qualifications). Having an advantage in employees confers a competitive edge that maybe evens the playing field, or maybe it doesn’t and you have to find other ways to be competitive. Again, an easier job if your benefits package attracts the best employees. What even employees are realizing is that the skyrocketing cost of pensions and medical insurance does impact a company, sometimes significantly. Would I rather work for a company that has a sustainable long-term plan of good matching 401k contributions, or would I rather live my “safe” working life with a company that has a pension plan, only to find out 30 years later that they can’t pay for it? Then I become dependent on the government. Yippee. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is that Americans have to save more. Maybe, just maybe, privatizing Social Security isn’t the demon Harold makes it out to be. Maybe Americans could save more if our tax burden were decreased.

Having a libertarian system is not without personal and individual risk. It is not about everyone getting the best services, the best medical care, the best retirement plans. It is, however, about sustainability. Social Security and Medicare (or Universal Health Care)–not sustainable. Then what? Tax more. Take away more of everyone’s income at the point of a gun.

Yes, I’m persuaded. Persuaded that the only reason I would ever vote for a major party would be because I believed gridlock is the best available option. Persuaded more than ever that the Democratic Party is inherently incompatible with libertarianism and libertarian principles. Thanks much Kos, Bruce and Harold, I can only assume based on what you wrote that this is what you set out to accomplish. Mission Complete.

History and libertarianism, yummy!

I am impressed with Timothy Sandefur’s post at Positive Liberty and highly recommend it to anyone reading Cato Unbound’s ponderings of whether libertarians should join the ranks of Democrats temporarily or to seek a more permanent relationship.

My one critique of Timothy’s post is that his conclusion ignores one powerful concept ground in practicality that some libertarians might find persuasive–voting for Democrats for the purpose of causing gridlock.  Now, I’ve previously indicated that I believe that, on principle, I can’t vote for Democrats, but that doesn’t mean that I ignored how alluring that is or that libertarians might not find that awfully tempting as a practical matter.

Even so, the post is a great read if for no other reason than I believe it gives an insightful shorthand analysis of how classic liberal thought developed into our two current major political parties.

Regarding the Cato Unbound post itself regarding corporate power, I admit I have long been a skeptic of corporations as they exist in the United States.  Not just because they have leveraged our expansive government power to our benefit, but because in form they are creatures of the state itself.  It has been pointed out that in the absence of government laws entities like corporations could be formed privately.  Ok.  Then as libertarians shouldn’t we be taking a critical look at whether laws governing the creation, life and structure of corporations are really compatible with our concepts of limited government?  If the government wasn’t so involved in defining and structuring business entities–C corps, S corps, all the different structures for limited liability entitles–is this how such entities would exist within markets?  I readily admit I haven’t thought the argument all the way through–it’s certainly not a simple issue and I would welcome comments on it–but I honestly expected to see a little more skepticism from the libertarian crowd.

I have also been perusing some of the trackbacks through Cato Unbound for this topic and have found some of the “Republican libertarian” sites just as useless as Bruce Reed’s responsive essay.  Here are some tidbits:

Right Wing News says:

On civil liberties, Republicans are more concerned about them than Democrats, but sometimes that doesn’t show because both parties have different priorities.Republicans get worried about serial killers and rapists.  Democrats get worried about people protesting abortion.

Are you goddamn kidding me?  Look, I’m no Democrat poster-boy, but this could quite be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read, well, at least this week.  Having principles on civil liberties means that the process is important, and that because of the principle of believing in the process sometimes you have to defend people you personally rather wouldn’t.  Because once you decide that you can subvert the process because of your judgement regarding the individual, then the process itself becomes meaningless.  I can’t even believe I have to type these words out; that this isn’t self-evident.  There is more to that paragraph that I could spend several additional paragraphs trashing or pointing out how outright hypocritical it is, but I just don’t have the energy right now.  If the author had merely contented himself by saying “Hey, Democrats sure as hell don’t have a spotless civil liberties record,” ok, I can buy that, but just the partisan tripe that actually ended up on the page . . . ugh.

But, philosophically at least, conservatives and Libertarians are on the same page with regard to the size and power of the government and spending even if, in practice, it doesn’t always work out that way.

It is clear that this author has been asleep since at least 2000, and possibly since 1988.

Here’s a little gem:

Conservatives and libertarians share a distrust of people in power. You can roll your eyes and snort all you want, but how skeptical would libertarians be if Penn Gillette were president? Not very. George W. Bush seems to deeply believe things conservatives believe and wish to promote, and he’s rewarded with loyalty. At its root, though, conservatism bristles when smart people proceed as though they have a unique grasp on the world’s problems and are uniquely qualified to solve them. See, e.g. the Clinton administration. Libertarians are the same way, though since nobody who deeply believes their principles will ever be elected to anything, they’re immune from being counted on for their unflagging support at the polls.

I see, so as long as the party in power cares about expanding government power, restricting personal freedom, and adopting invasive imperialist foreign policy in a way that you agree with, why, it’s ok not to be distrustful of that person.  But the prime chuckler in that paragraph is to bolster Bush and then rip Clinton as if the same critique doesn’t apply to Bush.  When Bush proceeds as though he has a unique grasp on the world’s problems and is uniquely qualified to solve them, that’s ok, ’cause he cares deeply.  If Clinton does it, he’s an arrogant jerkface.  Holy pot-calling-kettle.  And, by the way, if Penn Gillette were to be cut any slack by libertarians, it would be because of he distrusts power enough to strip it away from government.  If Penn Gillette became President and suddenly started expanding government power, you think Libertarians would cut him slack?  Holy crap, they’d roast him on a stick, with the pre-President Penn Gillette volunteering to light the fire!

Both are pro-business, to one extent or another, though I’ve never considered that a fundamental philsophical position any more than being pro-aviation or anti-tax. It springs from deeper roots: Libertarians believe an actor’s willingness and ability to satisfy a need or want should be rewarded by cash; conservatives, I think, see business as part of the infrastructure of the country — approach it from a more macro level, in other words. Still, if they get there via different routes, they do share the interest.

This isn’t an argument that libertarians and conservatives share an interest, it’s a place where we (“we” being libertarians) diverge nearly completely from both parties.  Libertarians rightly scoff at the arguments for the minimum wage, but by and large just as equally scoff at the ridiculous anti-market immigration stance, or anti-free trade stance conservatives have to offer.  They are all offensive to market principles.

By the way, libertarians believe that two parties should be free to come to terms of employment, not that someone is deserving of “cash.”  Ugh.

I’ll give this guy credit though, he nails one thing right on the head:

In fairness, I can imagine the Cato people casting about for someone to write a persuasive essay on why libertarians should vote Republican and coming up empty.

That’s a little unfair to quote out of context, as this author himself then purports to embark on such an exercise (unconvincingly to me), but the quote itself–not shabby at all.

Man, I just find both sides of the partisan aisle stretching so far to dupe people into giving them just a few votes for what is sure to be a very contested election cycle . . . I thought Republicans proved in 2000 and 2004 that the best way to go is to appeal to and motivate your base.  If you want any form of libertarian support, then go out and do it.  I don’t need Bruce Reed’s promises, or Republicans who think they have a lot in common with libertarians because they mistakenly believe libertarians can’t remember anything the Republican Party has done since 1988.  I want to see it.  I want to see smaller government.  I want to see competitive Congressional districts.  Prove it.  you prove it, I’ll show up.  Otherwise you’re just as well hoping you don’t need me, or anyone like me, and that you can count on the Gullible Dupe vote.

An argument for libertarian Democrats proves gridlock is the best solution.

I’ll try to be brief (for once) and state that Bill Reed’s Reaction Essay to Kos’ Lead Essay is pure partisan cheerleading that no libertarian should give more than a casual read, much like you might temporarily turn on Rush Limbaugh just to hear what drum conservative pundits will be beating since you know you won’t be hearing good analysis.

For example, Bill credits Democrats only for the late-90’s (projected) budget surpluses, the reduction in the federal workforce and restraint in federal spending.  It’s good that someone has already pointed out the obvious so I don’t have to:

No, the dot-com boom, the “peace dividend” and — most importantly — gridlock did that. Libertarians cannot of course “vote” for a stock market bubble or to re-win the Cold War, but we can vote for gridlock.

Bill talks a big game about Democrats being fiscally prudent and living within their means, which sounds good but in reality doesn’t promise smaller government at all.  It just promises that your taxes will go up quicker as they enact their socialist/communist economic programs.  Remember, before Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 Hillary was getting fired up about Universal Health Care.  Can anyone say with a straight face that had Democrats retained control of Congress until 1996, 98 or 2000 that we wouldn’t have Universal Health Care?

Bill plays up all the cards that the minority party plays . . . let’s get rid of earmarks, let’s redraw Congressional districts to lessen the incumbent advantage, etc.  Did I miss something about 1992-1994 that would have prevented Democrats from enacting such policies then?  Were the Democrats prevented from pushing such measures during the time they controlled Congress because of mind control?

No, what we’re hearing now about cleaning things up is what we always hear from the minority party, and this time just like prior times there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is anything more than what it has been in the past, a political ploy.  Why?  Because to believe that either party would exact such laws you would have to believe that there were principles involved beyond obtaining and securing power.

Take, for example, gay marriage.  When federal legislation was proposed by Republicans, suddenly Democrats were all about the federalism!  Let the states handle it!  There is no need for federal legislation!  What is that I hear . . . Democrats returning to the principles of federalism?  Hells no!  Just trying to find a way to salvage a political cause while ignoring as best they could the cursed irony of being bitten by the “principle” of centralized federal power they had pushed for years . . . when they were in power.

Dammit, I said I would try to be brief, so I’m going to pull up here, but much like Kos’ article I expect Reed’s article to fail the libertarian partisan hackery sniff test by a wide margin.  If Cato puts on a really, really honest Democrat, it would be the shortest responsive essay ever, and it would say “Vote Democrat ’cause our track record is better regarding civil liberties and (sometimes) free trade.”  That’s it.  No BS arguments about all the change Democrat leadership would bring, no BS about “New” Democrats, no BS about smaller government, and certainly no BS about how Democrats and libertarians are ideologically compatible.   You want to sell that snake oil?  Then do the legwork first.  Win on an anti-war platform (which would draw in a fair number of libertarian voters anyway and if you can’t do that why the hell would we trust you to be competent about anything else?) then redraw the Congressional districts, really prove that Democrats (and not gridlock) are committed to scaling back government . . . do the legwork, then we’ll talk.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

Hot on the heels of the recent poll of Iraqis indicating that most Iraqis want us out of Iraq, and not just that, but that they believe they will be safer when we’re gone, comes a blog report from Amygdala on an appearance by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) on Meet the Press which highlights a fundamental flaw in our Middle East policy.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about how we want to build a free and stable democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon of, well, freedom, stability and democracy in the Middle East.  But it seems to me as if a fundamental premise underlying that entire framework is that Iraq is a sovereign nation.  Right?

Enter Senator Mike DeWine.

But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re—have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals—three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

I’m not here to blame DeWine for his statement, I think it’s completely honest, if a bit contradictory (I’m not completely clear why he can’t see that).  How can it be their country, really, if we’re going to do what we have to do (and, presumably, stay until we’ve done it) if the Iraqis want us out and we aren’t even considering leaving?

It exposes the seedy underbelly of our President’s rhetoric about wanting democracy and freedom in Iraq–that we’re happy if these are consequences of our presence, but that if the President and Congress was satisfied that we had won the War on Terror in Iraq, and that our leaving wasn’t going to increase the risk of danger to the United States, our “commitment” to Iraqi freedom and democracy would give way to political expedience faster than a partisan pollster can stuff a ballot box.

We’ve done it before, so let’s not fault people passingly familiar with history for knowing that.

It also shows the reality of our paternalistic government–we do not respect Iraq as a sovereign nation.  If we did, how would we handle the knowledge that in a democratic state that most of the people did not want our presence?  Why, we would leave.  That’s what respect is about.  But other nations know that when it comes to the United States the only respect you’re going to get from us (when you’re standing in the way of U.S. interests) is when we’re looking at the wrong end of a nuclear weapon.

Is it any wonder that states whose governments have been targeted by the U.S. are trying by hook or crook to drum up a nuclear arsenal?

And exactly how is it that other Middle Eastern nations and citizens thereof are going to look up to Iraq and its model government if it’s clear they’re just the U.S.’ bitch?  Even assuming we “win” in Iraq, if that means we have to stay there for five or ten years after we know the Iraqis want us out, what will we have accomplished?  We’ll have proven that we really view Iraq as little more than an extended colony, obligated to follow our policy interests even if their people have determined that such interests are not Iraq’s interests.

Acknowledging that we’re in it for us and not them does clarify the victory condition problem.  If maybe we’re there for us, maybe we’re there for them is this kind of mish-mash of justifications, how do you set victory conditions?  It’s a mess.  But if you narrow it down to “We’re here for us” then you can at least be definitive about what we want to accomplish.  At least at that point you can say that regardless what the Iraqis believe that we’re staying anyway, dammit, until we’ve got what we came for.  Do I expect that to occur?  I do not.  I fully expect Senator DeWine’s comment to be flushed down the political toilet of history, never to be heard from again, leaving us right back where we were before.

Two final points: 

1.  Before you counter this by saying “We are there for the Iraqis,” consider the can of worms you’re opening up from a foreign policy perspective by justifying deposing a dictator or authoritarian government because of how the people are treated.  There’s a lot of people in this world, and a lot of crappy governments, and the line is going to get real long, real quick, if you’re going to put your flag in the ground over that principle.

2.  Iraqis want us out.  Iraqis believe they would be safer with us out.  We are now at a place where their sovereignty is at odds with our interest.  Don’t come on here claiming that somehow our interests are aligned.  To do so you better have a damn good reason to throw the poll results out.  Maybe such a reason exists.  Maybe there is a flaw in the methodology I am unaware of, or an unreported bias by the organization.  Maybe you hate polls, I don’t know.  But don’t come on here and claim we’ve got aligned interests unless you can back it up a substantive claim that a majority of Iraqis want us there.