Last March, Anthony Gregory questioned if Barack Obama was already a worse president than George W. Bush, noting a long list of dubious accomplishments during Bush’s eight-year tenure. Prior to his election Obama was highly critical of Bush’s policy on torture and the holding of suspected terrorists indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without trial. And one of Obama’s first acts after being sworn in as President was also one of his most dramatic: he signed an executive order banning torture and ordering the closure of Gitmo by 2010. It was hailed as a bold move to restore the country’s shattered image overseas and bring its prosecution of the war on terror in line with its values on respecting human rights.
What a difference a thousand days as Leader of the Free World makes.
During that time Obama has ordered the killing of an American citizen in Yemen, without due process, based on his alleged association with al-Qaeda. And in March he made an about-face on his promise to close Gitmo, instead reinstating the military tribunals and continuing Bush’s policy of detaining suspects without trial since they “in effect, remain at war with the United States.”
Now the Senate has granted Obama even greater discretion in arresting and indefinitely holding anyone – even U. S. citizens, despite its
supporters’ claims to the contrary – suspected of terrorist activity, in approving a defense appropriation bill for 2012 that essentially expands the battlefield for the war on terror to anywhere on the planet, including U. S. soil. (The Senate rejected an amendment sponsored by Colorado Democrat Mark Udall and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul that would have stripped out the authorization for indefinite detention of terrorism suspects.) It is an unprecedented expansion of power for a president who campaigned on a promise to restore the country’s “moral authority.” Yet Obama is simply another in a long line of politicians making promises that could never be kept: it is impossible to regain a moral authority the American empire has never possessed.
Reason’s Matt Welch criticizes Rand Paul for Paul’s assertion that the right to healthcare implies slavery. While it is true that in minds of many, the term “slavery” specifically refers to chattel slavery as practiced in the United States prior to the end of the American Civil War, the term itself is not so limited. And this is not the first time that a prominent person has used the term in regard to employment restrictions: Curt Flood was well known for saying “A well paid slave is nonetheless, a slave.” The same applies here. Indeed, I have compared modern attitudes and events to slavery myself, more than once. Of course, there are critical differences between Rand and Flood and myself, with melanin levels likely being the most important one. But just as Flood’s comparison in the past was apt, so to is Paul’s comparison in the present an accurate description. It is easy to see that there have been far worse tortures in the past than waterboarding, or even beatings, but I would certainly still call the latter “torture.” So, too, would I call forced labor of any sort “slavery.” Wearing a smock rather than rags does not change the name.
I’m no fan of electoral politics, and never did think Rand Paul was a consistent libertarian or even as libertarian as his father, Ron Paul–though his recent remarks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 make me think he may be more libertarian than he feels he can admit publicly. I don’t agree with many of his stated positions, but of late he’s being attacked for what is most libertarian: his view that private businesses have a right to discriminate on their own property (see, e.g., attacks by the monstrous Paul Krugman and an editorial from the New York Times).
Libertarians can debate whether the portions of the CRA64 that prohibit states and municipalities from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, etc., are libertarian or constitutional. As for the latter, the Fourteenth Amendment was illegally ratified, making legislation enacted pursuant thereto, such as the CRA64, unconstitutional (for more on the ratification issue, see Gene Healy’s The Squalid 14th Amendment). As for the former: libertarian centralists naively favor the federal government having broad powers to supervise the states, while libertarian decentralists and anarchists fear the central state and favor decentralization (see my posts Libertarian Centralists; The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment; Healy on States’ Rights and Libertarian Centralists; The Heroic Gene Healy on the 14th Amendment: “If this be heresy—then make the most of it!”; see also the insightful comments of J.H. Huebert quoted here).
But there can be no doubt that the provisions of the law that prohibit racial and other discrimination by private businesses in employment or accommodation (such as hotels and restaurants) are manifestly unlibertarian and unjust. Sadly, however, some libertarians actually endorse the state’s infringement on property rights as embodied in this law. Most of the prominent libertarian defenders of the unlibertarian aspects of the CRA64 seem to be associated with the Cato Institute, and include Brink Lindsey (see Cato Scholar Scolds Rand Paul, Gives OK to Soup Nazi; Lindsay’s stance is perhaps not surprising given his pro-war views), David Bernstein, Richard Epstein, and Roger Pilon (see my post Libertarian Centralists–Pilon’s stance is not too surprising, given his defense of the Police America Act). (Julian Sanchez, in a somewhat maundering article, seems to weakly defend Paul, but I’m not sure.) I don’t know if such a major deviation from libertarianism arises from shaky foundations (such as utilitarianism), naivety about the ability of the central state to do justice, or fear of a politically-correct backlash, but it’s pretty sad that a leftist is better on this issue than some libertarians–I have in mind Robert Scheer, who gave a surprisingly good and quasi-libertarian defense of Rand Paul on KCRW’s Left, Right and Center last week–he tears apart the Rand-bashing of his co-hosts Ariana Huffington (who drops the PC racism junk) and Tony Blankley (who says he agrees “intellectually” with Paul but still calls him a kook); see also Scheer’s article Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul? (Even John Fund and Aayan Hirsi Ali, both who seem libertarianish, gave a decent defense of Paul on the latest Bill Maher show, if memory serves). See also the partial transcription of Scheer’s remarks here:
[Keep reading…]
Peter Schiff is an excellent economist and his appearances on various financial shows (and the corresponding Youtube clips and blog posts) have contributed to the economics education and financial health of thousands of people. Why on earth is he running for the Senate? ((Schiff’s campaign website has been taken down.)) Does he really believe that the political process has even a remote chance of limiting the size and scope of government? Such a belief is truly absurd for two reasons:
- The inherent inertia of the political workings of Washington D.C. makes it nearly impossible to slow down the growth of government; actually shrinking the government from the inside borders on impossible.
- Even if I am wrong that it’s an impossibility to shrink government from the inside, what it would require is more than three libertarians. Were Schiff to win, and Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul to win also, that would make 3 libertarians in Congress (I’m generously calling Rand a libertarian, mind you) vs 532 socialists of varying degrees; worse, their forces would be split, as Schiff and Rand would be in the Senate (2 vs 98) and Ron would be in the House (1 vs 434). You’ve got to be kidding me.
I’d prefer to see Schiff save his money and that of all the people who would donate to his campaign (freedom-lovers) so they can use it to brace for the impact of this onsetting depression. Tossing so much into the political advertising money pit is a total waste. That’s an enormous amount to spend ($30 Million or so?) in the hopes that Peter can get elected and make great speeches on CSPAN, given that he already gets invited to speak on the financial circuit with little or no out-of-pocket expense on his part. In fact, Schiff has already had to cease appearing twice per week on one of the financial shows due to campaign laws, so now we’re back to all Keynes all the time. And even if he were to win, it’s doubtful the Republican leadership would seat Schiff on any of the important financial committees, so what would he really accomplish in the Senate? Maybe introduce a few bills which never make it out of committee?
Worst of all, I fear Schiff doesn’t really have a shot of winning since libertarianism doesn’t really resonate with the masses (yet), so all of that time and money campaigning will likely be wasted. (Yes, I know I just made an objective truth claim about others’ subjective evaluations which is an Austrian no-no.)
Last March, Anthony Gregory questioned if Barack Obama was already a worse president than George W. Bush, noting a long list of dubious accomplishments during Bush’s eight-year tenure. Prior to his election Obama was highly critical of Bush’s policy on torture and the holding of suspected terrorists indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without trial. And one of Obama’s first acts after being sworn in as President was also one of his most dramatic: he signed an executive order banning torture and ordering the closure of Gitmo by 2010. It was hailed as a bold move to restore the country’s shattered image overseas and bring its prosecution of the war on terror in line with its values on respecting human rights.
supporters’ claims to the contrary – suspected of terrorist activity, in approving a defense appropriation bill for 2012 that essentially expands the battlefield for the war on terror to anywhere on the planet, including U. S. soil. (The Senate rejected an amendment sponsored by Colorado Democrat Mark Udall and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul that would have stripped out the authorization for indefinite detention of terrorism suspects.) It is an unprecedented expansion of power for a president who campaigned on a promise to restore the country’s “moral authority.” Yet Obama is simply another in a long line of politicians making promises that could never be kept: it is impossible to regain a moral authority the American empire has never possessed.
