Liberalism vs. Libertarianism

Over at Digby's, David Atkins has a great post up titled "No, Stoller and Sullivan:  There Is No Liberal Conflict Over Ron Paul."

One of the things I like about it is that he doesn't shy away from the fact that - at its heart - Liberalism is paternalistic:  that the liberal philosophy is one that recognizes that the proper role of the government is to prevent the rich, the powerful, and the ruthless from simply running roughshod over those less rich, less powerful and more mild-mannered.  Here is the nut of the thing, but do click over to read it in its entirety:

Liberalism is and has always been about intervention. It is the opposite of libertarianism, and always has been. Liberals understand that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Left to their own devices, people with weapons and money will always try to exploit and dominate people without weapons and money unless they are stopped from doing so. It is not because we are taught to do so. It's just innate human nature. If this were not the case, libertarianism would work as an ideology. It does not, and never has at any point in history.

When the government steps in to stop a corporation from dumping noxious chemicals into a stream, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. When the government steps in to enforce desegretation in schools, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless.

[snip ]

This is what liberalism is. It is unavoidably, inescapably paternalistic in nature. It is so because it understands the inevitable tendency of human beings to be truly awful to one another unless social and legal rules are put in place--yes, by force--to prevent them from doing otherwise.

Conservatives use force of government as well, of course, but not in defense of the weak and oppressed, but rather to maintain the power of money, of patriarchy and of the established social pecking order. Where the oppressive hand of government helps them achieve that, they utilize it. Where libertarian ideology helps them keep power in the hands of the local good old boys, they use that instead.

But a liberal--a progressive, if you will--is always an interventionist, because a liberal understands that society is constantly on a path of self-perfection, in an effort to use reason and good moral judgment to prevent insofar as possible the exploitation of one person by another.

The division between liberals lies in how far to intervene . . . .

Toward a Woldview-Centric Assessment of Politicians

A few days ago Taryn Hart over at Plutocracy Files had an excellent piece up titled “Glenn Greenwald on Ron Paul:  Why Worldview Matters.”  Essentially, Hart critiqued Greenwald’s reductionist evaluation of Ron Paul in which he looked only at Paul’s asserted positions on isolated issues, and argued that a better means of evaluating political candidates is to try and suss out their overall worldview:

[I]t’s not just a candidate’s positions on individual issues that are important, what’s also important (in most instances more important) is the candidate’s worldview.  A President’s worldview will determine the outcome of thousands of decisions the President will make, almost all of which will not be campaign issues and many of which are unforeseeable.

Thus, it matters to me that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution, not because I think teaching evolution in schools should be prioritized above the lives of Muslim children, but because it’s proof that Paul rejects science, evidence and rationality, which tells us a good deal about how Paul could be expected to approach the thousands of decisions he would have to make as President.  Similarly, it matters to me that Ron Paul is anti-choice and claims to be a libertarian, as it suggests to me his defense of freedom is disingenuous and that his positions are likely motivated by a defense of hierarchy and patriarchy.  (footnote deleted).

I think this assessment of Ron Paul is spot-on.  For too long Paul has gotten a pass for on his “libertarianism” because he opposes current practices that he feels violates individual rights.  For example, he opposes the federal government’s War on Drugs.  But it is important to understand exactly why Paul opposes the War on Drugs – because it is federal in nature. 

On every single issue in which Ron Paul claims the government has overstepped its bounds he always devolves to the same position:  the federal government has no right to proscribe personal conduct, but the states do.  This is why Paul can justify attacking the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – not necessarily because he is a bigot, but because they are (in his mind) examples of federal government overreach. 

According to Paul, each of the 50 states has the authority to define the rights and freedoms of its citizens.  He isn’t angry that Texans now have to treat black people equally, he’s angry that Texans have to treat black people equally because a majority of US citizens from outside of Texas told them they had to – Paul thinks Texans should still be free to discriminate against black people if that’s what they want to do.  His overriding belief is not in the sanctity of personal freedom but in the supremacy of state law.

But this, of course, is insane and is in no way reflective of actual Libertarian principles.  A Libertarian, for example, holds that “adults have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, and therefore criminalizing drug use is wrong.”  Ron Paul holds that “adults have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, unless their state government tells them otherwise.”  As many others have pointed out elsewhere, Ron Paul isn’t fighting for the Constitution, he’s fighting for the Articles of Confederation. 

Of course, devolving authority downward – away from the federal level and onto more local levels – is exactly the “defense of hierarchy and patriarchy” that Hart argues one should expect to see from a man who rejects science in favor of ideology and who claims at once to be for freedom but not for the freedom of a woman to control her own reproduction. 

The utility of a “worldview-centric” assessment of candidates is that it allows you to think about and predict what a candidate’s position is likely to be on issues about which he or she hasn’t been asked.  I don’t know, for example, whether Ron Paul believes that wives are supposed to be subordinate to their husbands because I don’t know that he’s ever been asked that question.  But in light of Paul’s belief in local authority and his general policy of strict non-interference, I suspect he still adheres to the old phrase “every man is a king in his own home” – and that’s the kind of thinking that stripped women of their individual rights once they got married. 

It seems to me that these are the kinds of things people should be thinking about when they consider political candidates, and the “worldview-centric” way of considering candidates is really the only way to do so.

Newt: Giving Iowans What They Want

There is a theory being espoused by conservative and liberal pundits alike that one of the factors powering Newt Gingrich in the polls is the idea among Republicans that “the Professor” could wipe the floor with Barack Obama in a debate.  Paul Waldman explains the idea here:

If you aren’t tuned in to conservative media – the radio shows, television shows, and websites where the base Republican voter lives – you might not be aware of how powerful this impulse is.  Many conservatives are positively obsessed with the idea that contrary to all appearances, Barack Obama is kind of a dolt.  There’s lots of talk about how Obama only got into Columbia and Harvard Law School because of affirmative action (you may remember noted highbrow intellectual Donald Trump making this claim), and endless jokes about Obama overusing teleprompters, with the idea that he’s too dumb to give an extemporaneous speech sometimes implied and sometimes stated outright.

So many conservatives have a fantasy that if they nominate their own smart guy, he’ll show the world that they’ve been right all along, that Obama is really a numbskull whom people only believe is smart because the liberal media sing his praises . . . .

. . . . [T]o many Republicans, Newt offers the opportunity not just to defeat Obama but to expose him as a fraud.

It makes sense to me that a sizeable chunk of the Republican base would believe this about President Obama, and that it would be important to them to win the election by humiliating Obama and the Liberals as much as possible.  Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that these voters care more about humiliating Obama and the Liberals than about actually winning the election in the first place.  As mentioned here, and here Republicans don’t debate political ideas, Republicans wage war against political demons.

(Bonus Romney quote from last night’s debate:  “There are Democrats who love America.”  This should not go unremarked.  Romney delivered that line like he was saying something revelatory, like it would surprise his audience to learn that there are at least some Democrats who are not actively working to destroy the United States of America.  I tell you, the entire GOP is barking, staring mad.)

And for those Republican voters looking for assurances that Newt Gingrich might just make their dreams of domination and humiliation come true . . . well, Newt turned in a pretty good performance last night.  I’m sure that any doubts such voters may have been harboring on that score were put to rest.

Shameless Iowa Speculation

According to this PPP poll, Ron Paul is making a big move in Iowa at the expense of New Gingrich, who leads Paul now only by a single point:

Upon reflection, I think this actually understates the difficulty Newt is going to have in Iowa, which is a caucus state.  Newt has surged to frontrunner status in recent months almost entirely because everybody else the rabid Republican base could love has imploded.  And that would be fine if Iowa were a primary.  But the fact Iowa is a caucus state means Newt’s people actually have to get caucus goers out to vote for him, and that usually requires a good ground game.

Rick Perry's Ad Signals Republican Ragnarok

Surely by now you’ve seen the Rick Perry YouTube ad that is the latest faceplant his campaign has engineered for him.  The rocket scientists in charge of his run at the Oval Office forgot to turn off the YouTube “like/dislike” button, and so far the odious thing’s received the second most “dislikes” YouTube ever has recorded. The only thing the American public hates more than this Perry ad is Justin Bieber’s video for “Baby.”

(In all honesty . . . I think that is the correct call.)

The ad features Perry, all saddle-faced and aw-shucksin’ it in an outdoor scene shot somewhere in Deutschland, explaining that he loves him some Baby Jeebus and he hates him some gays.  He especially hates them military gays that volunteer to fight and risk their lives for America.  Just thinkin’ ‘bout them gays makes him shudder and feel all icky inside.  The thing might almost be a Stephen Colbert parody but Perry apparently intended for it to be taken seriously, so others have been forced to provide the parody for which the thing so desperately cries out.  The meta-parody, as it were:

Newt Puts Romney in a Box With the Trump Debate

One of the things in which political junkies like me too often indulge is idle speculation about how campaign events shape themselves and whether what we are watching is, in fact, ultimately some candidate’s devious plan.  It’s pointless, I know, but it’s fun, so I’m going to indulge myself.

I wonder whether Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump planned in advance what we are now seeing regarding the NewsMax debate Trump was supposed to moderate in Iowa on December 27^th.  After all, it seems to have worked out remarkably well for Gingrich.

Newt and Donald met Monday morning for an hour and then held a press conference in which Newt endorsed the idea of Trump moderating a Republican debate, calling it no more ridiculous that Ronald Reagan starring in a movie with a chimp.  (Psstt . . . Donald.  That makes you the chimp.)

The thing is, though, other candidates either already had or pretty much immediately thereafter indicated that they would not participate in the debate.  Ron Paul’s campaign – currently running 2^nd in Iowa – had issued his formal refusal two days before, and Jon Huntsman announced that same Monday that he would not participate in this “publicity stunt.”  Michele Bachmann telegraphed an obvious out by questioning on Tuesday whether Trump could be objective since “he said he’s already leaning towards a candidate.”

(Rick Perry so far has kept mum.  Only Rick Santorum has agreed to also take part.)

Of course, the only person Newt is really interested in seeing on stage with himself is Mitt Romney.  And Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he, too, is not interested in attending Trump’s debate.  Which set Newt up perfectly:

“I think if you’re afraid to debate with Donald Trump, people are going to say, ‘so you want me to believe you can debate Barack Obama, but you’re afraid to show up with Donald Trump?” Gingrich told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.  “And I think – it strikes me it’s kind of a very weak position.  I don’t know why people would do that.”

It didn’t help Romney that Trump spoke to MSNBC later that same day and expressed surprise at Romney’s refusal to participate:  “Frankly, I’m surprised because he really wants my endorsement.  I mean, he wants it very badly.” (emphasis added)

Ouch.  It sounds very much like Romney approached Trump hat-in-hand, but didn’t want anybody to know he was wooing the reality-show hairpiece.  That looks pretty weak too.

And now Romney is very nicely boxed in.  The debate isn’t scheduled to take place for another three weeks, so I’d be surprised if we don’t see Gingrich trying to make hay about Romney’s refusal to appear during those weeks.  If Gingrich keeps this story alive – the story about Romney being “weak” – then you just know it’ll be like catnip to Donald Trump, and is the perfect little substance-free spectacle with which our political media prefers to distract itself.

Indeed, that already appears to be happening.  In an interview scheduled to air tonight at 10:00 PM on Fox Business News, Sarah Palin is weighing in and urging Mitt Romney to change his mind and take part in the Trump debate.  And right-wing house organs like Free Republic are suggesting that – wait for it – in order to make this less of a circus Palin, too, should moderate:

You know, if I was [sic] Trump, I’d ask Sarah Palin to join him to moderate the debate.  The left in the media are talking about how Trump is just a publicity hog, and how he’s not a serious journalist who can moderate a debate, forget that, if Sarah Palin, who did go to college for journalism’s sake and knows a lot about every single issue was to join Trump, we’d have us a great debate.

[snip]

If Trump wanted to up the ante, he'd ask Palin to help. Then, we'd get a real debate, what with her knowledge of this issues and her connection with the American people. And it would infuriate the Republican establishment because Romney just said he wouldn't do it. If he won't kiss the ring of Trump, he will sail far away from getting the nod of the American people if he decides to not kiss Sarah's ring.  (emphasis added)

(I don’t make ‘em up folks, I just report what I see ‘em saying.)

So I imagine for the next few weeks we’ll be treated to Gingrich and Trump both sniping at Romney and calling him “weak” for failing to appear at the Iowa debate on the 27^th.  Sarah Palin – the sultana of self-promotion, the prima donna of PR – will continue to weigh in, and the media will speculate like wild about whether Mitt Romney will flip-flop on “the Trump debate decision.”

Either way he’s fairly screwed.  If Mitt refuses to debate then (i) he’ll be deemed weak for ditching the debate, and (ii) he’ll be deemed to have insulted Donald Trump, who – for some completely unfathomable reason – the GOP base holds near and dear to their hearts.  If Mitt agrees to debate then (i) he’ll be deemed weak for backing down, and (ii) he’ll forever have cemented in the public’s mind that there really is literally nothing about which Mitt Romney won’t “flip-flop.”

Nicely played, Newt.

Rick Perry's Debate Debut: Handicapping the Candidates

I watched the debate via Internet, but I assume the sound quality was the same for those watching on the TeeVee – boy!  did that suck!  The amount of reverb present whenever anyone was talking gave me a headache and sometimes made it next to impossible to figure out what was being said.  I don’t know if that was a problem with the audio equipment or somehow resulted from the fact the debate appeared to have been held in an airplane hangar, but it was extremely annoying.  Almost as annoying as the hagiographic video they ran of St. Ronald Reagan and his missus.

As for the GOP base audience, I took notes of the things to which they seemed to react/applaud.  These included:

--Newt Gingrich’s charge that the “liberal media,” acting as the debate’s moderators, were “carrying water for Obama”;

--Michele Bachmann’s claim that the Affordable Care Act constitutes “socialized medicine”;

--Jon Huntsman’s charge that Obama should “get out from behind a teleprompter;”

--Santorum’s announced goal of cutting way back on food stamps and housing assistance; and

--Rick Perry’s assertion that Social Security was “a monstrous lie” that “won’t be there” for our children. 

But by far, what drew the loudest and longest applause was Brian Williams attempt to ask Rick Perry about the record number of people he has executed as Governor of Texas.  The really chilling thing about this applause is that it started before Williams could even finish setting up the question.  He got as far as saying “Governor Perry, you’ve presided over the executions of the largest number of people of any modern governor –” when the audience broke into sustained and spontaneous applause.  They were applauding Perry for killing a lot of people.  If you wanted evidence of the bloodthirsty nature of the GOP base . . . There it is.

Individual assessments of each candidate's performance are below the fold.

Ron Paul: Crazier'n a Bag of Snakes

Well, I tuned into last night’s Republican nomination debate.  If there were any doubt before that the media think it’s their responsibility to pick winners and losers for the American people, this spectacle should have put such doubts to rest.  So far as the moderators were concerned, last night very much was Rick Perry’s Big Debut: Going Toe to Toe with Mitt.  Every candidate other than Rick Perry and Mitt Romney – the two frontrunners who Conventional Wisdom says will have to fight it out in a steel cage death match for the nomination – got amazingly short shrift. 

Moreover, even when one of the other, lesser candidates did get a question it seemed to me that two times out of three it was a question about Rick Perry.  At one point pretty much all the candidates got involved in a 5 minute discussion regarding Perry’s decision to have little girls inoculated against the Human Papillomavirus, which causes cervical cancer.  This was an issue, apparently, because many true blue Conservatives feel that only the threat of cervical cancer prevents their little girls from one day having Teh Sex -- and as all true blue Conservatives will tell you, women having Teh Sex is worse than women getting The Cancer.

But as crazy as that sideshow was, inch-for-inch and pound-for-pound the greatest entertainment bang for your buck last night was to be found in the demented little Keebler Elf that is Ron Paul.

Thoughts on the Seven Dwarfs Debate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.