Obama: Any Silver Lining?

Warren Gibson Current Events, Politics , , , ,

So it’s four more years of Obama.  What can we expect?

Obama makes me, a libertarian these last 40 years, nostalgic for the sort of “liberals” who until recently dominated the Democratic Party.  At least those folks have some respect for facts and tolerance for other points of view.  Obama is different.  I know longer think it an exaggeration to say that Obama hates America, as Rev. Wright preached to him for twenty years.  I have a new understanding of Obama thanks to Dinesh d’Souza’s book “Obama’s America.” Barack Obama had an epiphany at the grave of his father, a man who was a leader among the anti-colonialists of Kenya.  The man was a no-good drunkard who deserted and abused more than one wife and child, yet Barack was able to put aside these faults and hitch his star to his father’s cause. His first term in office gave us numerous actions that exemplify his quest to bring America down.  He likes to stir up class hatred.  His tax proposals are all about fairness, as defined by him, of course, and never mind the ensuing economic damage.  That they punish the most productive among us is all to the good; that they damage all of us in the long run doesn’t matter. He has seized control of health care.  He has acquiesced in a brutal war on medical marijuana patients, waged by his Northern California District Attorney and others.  He has ordered assassination of U.S. citizens and condoned domestic spying.  The CIA continues its massacre of civilians in Pakistan, a supposed ally.  All of this would make a high-class liberal like Adlai Stevenson gasp with horror.

Thank God we still have a Republican House and a Senate where they can filibuster.  Gridlock will probably prevent any new atrocities of the scale of Obamacare.  But the door remains open for a great deal of evil-doing.

First off, there will be at least three Supreme Court appointments in the next four years.  It’s a sure bet that Obama will appoint “social justice” types, the sort who have no concept of the Constitution as a document intended to limit the powers of government.  These are life appointments so the new appointees could be wreaking havoc long after Obama is gone.

Second, the President has a great deal of latitude in foreign affairs. Just look at the damage George Bush inflicted on the world with his senseless wars in terms of casualties, hatred of America, and insolvency.  But there is a ray of hope here.  The warmongering neo-cons are on the sidelines and Obama’s ineptness in foreign affairs may spare us some future dustup that Romney might have provoked.

This isn’t the silver lining I had in mind, however.  I present here, with misgivings, a viewpoint suggested by my colleague Jeff Hummel. He likes Obama’s victory because he thinks it will hasten our Götterdämmerung – the collapse of Social Security and Medicare and default on Federal debt.  Out of the ashes will come a new order in which Social Democracy has been rooted out of the polity, as the paroxysm that was the Civil War put an end to slavery.  This is a viewpoint with which I have a great deal of sympathy while continuing to hope for some sort of “soft landing” instead.

Social Democracy is the idea that individual choices of all sorts must be decided by voting and enforced by the government, the agency of compulsion and coercion as Mises called it.  I wouldn’t contest the proposition that Social Democracy is a cancer on our society that ranks with slavery in its banefulness. I dearly hope that a future upheaval might root it out but I’m not so sure.

I hasten to emphasize that I say “ashes” metaphorically.  We will survive the demise of the Federal government.  The sun will still rise and physical assets will remain in place.  The damage done to the social fabric will be lessened if people see the collapse coming.  That private individuals can and do step in when government collapses was illustrated on a small scale by a recent incident involving the California park system.  A list of parks scheduled for closure was published and it looked like private groups had raised enough money to keep at least some of them open. (Then some bureaucrat found $50 million lying around in the Parks Dept. and the private groups gave up in disgust.)

I confess to being a bit more conservative than Jeff Hummel.  I’m slightly older and may have more to lose as things get worse.  I continue to hope that libertarian ideas will continue to infiltrate the public discourse and that the respect for productive people that is still held by a substantial though declining segment of the population will rein in Obama and his hangers-on.

The View from California

Brandon Christensen Liberty

In other election news, the Atlantic reports:

On Tuesday, California voters overwhelmingly approved two ballot initiatives that were sharply opposed by the very same “victims” they were allegedly designed to protect. The final vote tallies are not yet in, but it looks like there was statewide approval for new criminal penalties on prostitution-related offenses, while a Los Angeles-only proposal to mandate the use of condoms in all pornographic films shot in the county is also heading to victory.

Ouch. And then there’s this:

The entire ballot initiative process in California has long been derided because of the way it allows special interest groups to bypass the legislature and create laws themselves. It also makes ballot an jumbled mess and frustrates voters with confusing and sometimes contradictory proposals. These are just two of latest examples that will have Californians spending a lot of effort helping people who didn’t ask to be helped.

Indeed. There is more here. I almost feel guilty for not voting now. California is often acknowledged (or derided) as a state known for its social tolerance, but I haven’t seen this at all in the political arena. From banning gay marriage to demanding that porn stars wear condoms (I wonder what that will do our state’s multi-million dollar porn industry?) to imposing stiffer penalties on sex workers, Californians can hardly claim to be the socially liberal torchbearers of a brave new world. Instead, I see a state populace comfortable with both draconian tax laws and draconian social laws. Socialism has never looked so good.

On the other hand Continue reading →

The End of the Conservative Media? Or Why Brandon Was Right (Sorta)

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics

Conservatives should be familiar with its contours. For years, they’ve been arguing that liberal control of media and academia confers one advantage: Folks on the right can’t help but be familiar with the thinking of liberals, whereas leftists can operate entirely within a liberal cocoon. This analysis was offered to explain why liberal ideas were growing weaker and would be defeated […]

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses. What conservative Washington Post readers got, when they traded in Dave Weigel for Rubin, was a lot more hackery and a lot less informed about the presidential election.

Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. WorldNetDaily brought you birtherism.Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka the Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemies in a “Grand Jihad” against America. Seriously?

Conor Friedersdorf has more here. Do read the whole thing.

I was wrong in my prediction that Romney would win, but only because I hadn’t been paying attention to the most recent jobs reports. Unemployment rates are low enough for Obama to win re-election. So my overall point that the economy trumps everything else is still spot on. Can you imagine Obama winning re-election with unemployment at 8.5%? Me neither.

The GOP could have taken a lesson from Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, though, and realized that while Americans respect wealthy people more than most other societies, such respect hardly ever translates into political success (rich people already boss us around at work, why would we want them bossing us around in the political arena as well?).

And, in case you are wondering, I didn’t vote. If I had, I would have voted for Gary Johnson, “no” to tax increases and “yes” to abolishing the death penalty.

Any Thoughts on the Election?

Brandon Christensen Politics

I made my predictions earlier this year. I stand by ’em.

Jacques Delacroix shares his thoughts here.

What about you guys?

Is the State Responsible for Declines in Violence?

Brandon Christensen Current Events

A couple of days ago Dr. Delacroix raised this question. I finally got around to critiquing it here. An excerpt:

We should be looking at what institutions have enabled the nation-state to establish itself, survive, and eventually thrive (at least in western Europe and Japan; the US is a republic, not a nation-state) in the world today.

Do read the rest, and (God forbid!) add your own two cents as well.

“Ayn Rand Explained”

Warren Gibson Liberty

Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared to 445,000 copies in 2011, more than 50 years after it was published. Books about Rand are proliferating as well, including major biographies by Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns. Is there room for yet another volume in this increasingly crowded field? Marsha Enright has shown that there is.

Ms. Enright promises a lot with her title, Ayn Rand Explained, and she delivers. She brings to her task a background reaching back to the early 1970’s when she first met Rand. Her writing suggests a keen intelligence and an independent spirit. The result is a book that is thorough and careful but not pedantic.

Her personal recollections portray Ayn Rand’s warm and approachable side and not the angry cult figure suggested by some. Particularly charming is the story about the cat jewelry.

A new reader or a moviegoer who wants to learn more about Rand and her philosophy, objectivism, will soon discover that there are two camps of followers. David Kelley’s Atlas Society promotes the view that objectivism, as a set of ideas, is necessarily open to extension by any serious thinker who accepts its basic premises. The Ayn Rand Institute is a far larger group because it receives royalties on the heft sales of Rand’s books. The ARI calls objectivism a closed system. Ms. Enright addresses this conflict head-on, explaining both positions evenhandedly and giving credit where credit is due.

Careful analyses of Rand’s novels are followed by a 40-page explication of objectivism, proceeding systematically, as Rand did, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics and esthetics. Some readers may find this section heavy going and may want to skip it and return later. If they do return, they should be well rewarded.

A separate chapter on politics takes up the uneasy relationship between libertarians and objectivists. She offers back-to-back sections outlining the case for the “plaintiff” (objectivism) and for the “defendant” (libertarianism). I found these sections particularly interesting now that ARI is making nice to libertarians, a sin that earlier got David Kelley kicked out of ARI.

I thought Nathaniel Branden deserved a little more sympathy than he got in this book. He and Barbara Branden have been the victims of vicious smears from the orthodox camp. Nathaniel has admitted the errors he made in his relationship with Rand while Rand never admitted hers, which were far greater. He has redeemed himself many times over, in my view, by the positive difference he has made in the lives of a great many people, both in person and through his books and lectures.

“Ayn Rand Explained” will be my top recommendation to anyone who asks me about Rand and objectivism.

Jews and Palestinians: Is the Elusive Peace Close By?

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links, Politics, Religion , , , , , , ,

A couple of days ago I came across this fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal. It’s about the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands around the same time as the expulsion of Arabs from the new state of Israel and how the Israelis have finally gotten around to bringing this issue up in negotiations. Among the excerpts:

Within 25 years [of the establishment of Israel], the Arab world lost nearly all its Jewish population. Some faced expulsion, while others suffered such economic and social hardships they had no choice but to go. Others left voluntarily because they longed to settle in Israel. Only about 4,300 Jews remain there today, mostly in Morocco and Tunisia […]

And this:

Many of the Palestinians who fled Israel wound up stranded in refugee camps. Multiple U.N. agencies were created to help them, and billions of dollars in aid flowed their way. The Arab Jews, by contrast, were quietly absorbed by their new homes. “The Arab Jews became phantoms” whose stories were “edited out” of Arab consciousness […]

I think that the Israelis were right to bring these expulsions to the forefront of the debates with the Palestinians. A lot of people on both sides have suffered and it is a good thing that the plight of the Arab world’s Jews is now being highlighted. But now that this historical fact is being highlighted by the Israeli state in its negotiations with the Palestinians, will it do any good for the peace process?

The reaction by one of the Palestinian negotiators is telling: Continue reading →

“Gold and Money”

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, History, Liberty , , , , ,

That’s the title of this piece in the Freeman by our very own Dr. Gibson. In it, he suggests:

Let’s turn down the heat a bit and look into some propositions about gold. That should lead us to some reasonable ideas about whether or how gold might return.

Indeed. I’m  tempted to copy and paste the whole thing, but just check it out.

PS I’ve been a very busy man lately, but I’ve got a bunch of almost-finished writings in the works. Stay tuned!

The Rationality of Anti-Antisemitism; The Currency Issue Made Simple

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, History, Liberty , , , , , , , , , ,

The most interesting thing I have read in years about anti-Semitism is in the Wall Street Journal today. A poll in Europe indicates that 50% of Spaniards have a somewhat unfavorable, or a very unfavorable impression of Jews. The percentage in Germany is 25, in France it’s 20, in the UK, it’s 10. There are large number so Jews in France and in the UK.

What makes Spanish anti-Antisemitism interesting is that there are no Jews to speak off in Spain. All Spanish Jews were expelled from the country in 1492. The bulk of those who did not die in the expulsion went to the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire were they were welcomed by the Sultan. Others scattered around Muslim North Africa and Italy. Until WWII, many Turkish and Balkans Jews spoke 15th century Spanish. I knew a Spanish-speaking Turkish Jew at Stanford in the sixties myself. His last name was Cardona.

Between 1939 and the 1970s, the Fascist regime of Francisco Franco promoted a brand of Catholicism that was unfriendly to Jews, as “Christ killers.” For most of the intervening period the Inquisition promised to make life miserable enough for Jews that they did not come back.

So, here you go: The ultimate judgment on the rationality of anti-Antisemitism: The less the chance that you ever met a Jew, the more likely you dislike Jews. At least, that’s true in Europe. Continue reading →

Homicide and the State

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , , , , ,

I am one of the hundreds of thousands, possibly of millions of conservatives with strong libertarian leanings. Incidentally, I am not just talking, I showed it in several things I wrote and published. (Please, ask me.) There are several things however that prevent me from stating unambiguously that I am a libertarian, and much less, a Libertarian.

Of the two main philosophical obstacles the first is the mainstream libertarians’ barely concealed pacifism. I deal with this issue in several postings in factsmatter.wordpress.com that include the name “Paul” in their title (I also have objections to Ron Paul, the politician, another topic treated in some of the same postings.) My second problem is that it seems to me that serious libertarians have not dealt adequately with the central issue of the state as peacemaker.

Let me say before I proceed that it may well be the case that I am simply exposing my ignorance, that the subject has been examined by many good minds and that I have simply not come across their efforts. There might even be forums where the issue is discussed frequently and about which I am ignorant because of my bad habit of spending a lot of time watching French television series. And by the way, I propose (forcefully) the following rule: No one must give anyone a reading assignment if he/she has not even done the assignment. Don’t tell me to read what you have not read thoroughly yourself!

Now back to the state as peacemaker. Continue reading →

Immigration: More on Conservative, Liberal Ignorance

Jacques Delacroix Liberty

I have heard conservative radio talk-show callers express indignation at immigrants who don’t “become American citizens,” as if it showed ill-will on the part of the immigrants, or lack of love for America.

These calls demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of our immigration laws. First, you have to become a legal immigrant (get the famous “green card”). Most foreigners cannot qualify for this in any way. The doors to this country are not wide open. (See below.) For those who are allowed to apply, it takes time and patience, unusually so, because the Immigration and Naturalization Service is one of the worst, least responsive of Federal bureaucracies. Then, once you are legal, you have to wait four to seven years to apply for citizenship. This arduous process leaves little room for ill-will. It’s exhausting and discouraging.

I have also heard many indignant liberals (liberals are almost constantly indignant or “appalled”) make statements implying that American immigration laws discriminate on the basis of race. They do, but not the way liberals think. In fact, it’s extraordinarily difficult for a European (most European are “white” in American classification) to emigrate to this country. There are reasons I don’t want to go into here though I will on demand. The numbers show unambiguously that people from Latin America or Asia are admitted legally in several times the numbers of Europeans. Of course, federal legislation considers almost all Latin Americans and all Asians in this country as “protected minorities.” This means that they deserve special treatment because they were historically oppressed by reason of their race.

Don’t blame me or conservatives in general for the stupidity of the relevant federal laws. They are entirely the handiwork of liberal opinion. Be it as it may, here is the summary: If you are “brown” or “yellow” your chances of coming here legally are slim. If you are “white,” your chances are practically nil.

If you find all this hard to believe, please take a little trip to the Statistical Abstract of the United States. It’s readily available on-line and easy to read.

Much of our political debate in this country is wasted because people are ill-informed of the issues about which they feel strongly. There is no excuse for this situation. Obtaining info used to be arduous; it used to require specialized skills. Not anymore.

Legal Immigration: Two Fallacies

Jacques Delacroix Liberty

I keep hearing conservative commentators contrasting legal immigrants with illegal immigrants as if the former where civilized, orderly people while the latter were queue-jumpers. This is based on a big, significant misunderstanding of our immigration laws. Let me make fairly simple a fairly complicated matter.

The average Irish school teacher say,  has approximately zero opportunity to emigrate legally to the US. Let me say this again; the operational word is “zero.”  I say approximately because he my yet win the lottery. I don’t mean this figuratively but literally. There is a lottery for would-be immigrants from areas of the world that have not contributed many immigrants to the US recently. The areas included are spread over Africa and western Europe. It’s exactly a lottery: You get a (free) ticket; if your number comes up and you are not otherwise barred, you are it. A very small number world-wide is admitted through the lottery.

Legal admissions to this country normally occurs through a combination of political asylum, decreed by Congress every so often on a country by country basis (Cuba, si, Haiti, no),  selection of individuals whose skills and talents are deemed useful to American society, and “family re-unification.” The latter is by far the most important, numerically. The skills-based admission quota is so small that in recent years, it was filled during the first half of the first day when applications opened. Our Irish school-teacher does not belong to one of the desired categories anyway. Continue reading →

Bizarre Conservative Ideas About Immigration

Jacques Delacroix Politics

I have told several people on the Internet that Gov. Perry was inaccurate in calling Social Security (SS) a “Ponzi scheme.” That’s because what’s morally and also legally objectionable in a Ponzi scheme is that sooner or later the scheme runs out of late investors, or rather, investments, to pay off early investors. Whether SS will so run out depends entirely on two things: 1 Whether fewer late investors may provide large investments to pay off early investors. This may even happen painlessly given high economic growth. 2 Whether there will be many more late investors in SS than mechanically (dumbly) prolonging demographic trends would predict.

The US population may rise much faster than it is now growing through natural increase, including through natural increase fomented by deliberate economic measures. Or the American population may rise suddenly and healthily because our immigration policy is transformed. This could happen overnight and the beneficial effects on SS could be nearly instantaneous. Let me concentrate on this scenario.

Imagine that Congress and the President (not this one, maybe another) decide to admit each year for ten years 100,000 additional healthy and literate foreigners age 20 to 35. Solid research suggests that such a selective opening of borders might aggravate unemployment initially but that it would shortly spur economic growth. The effect of adding one million new people in the best of their working years over ten years would make the fear that we are running out of workers to support the non-working population considerably less relevant. Of course, I am selecting the low number of 100,000 per year deliberately to avoid causing panic without a name. (Numbers admitted legally each year in recent years were about 1,1 million.) In fact, there is no obvious reason why the new immigration could not comprise 200,000, or even 500,000 people annually. Certainly there are sufficient reservoirs of potential immigrants worldwide to achieve such numbers.

My monitoring of talk-show radio leads me to suspect that many conservatives think that if this could happen it would already have happened. This misconception in turn is rooted in the bizarre ideas conservatives tend to entertain with respect to our immigration system.

There are two main bizarre ideas: One regards who is allowed to come into this country (legally, I mean); the other strange misconception has to do with how aliens become US citizens.

The system by which the US admits immigrants is a little complicated and its description relied on a specialized legal jargon. In my considerable experience, few people have the patience to sit through a lecture on American immigration policy. So, let me cut to the chase:

There is no way, zero way, the average married Mexican can legally immigrate into this country.

There is only one way the average married Irish man or woman may immigrate into this country: Winning a lottery. In 2008, only about 48,000 people, all from Europe and Africa, gained admission on the basis of winning that lottery.

That’s it, folks. If you want to know more about the raw numbers, study the relevant pages in the Statistical Abstract of the US.

So, contrary to what I suspect is a widespread idea among conservatives, it is not the case that there is an orderly, wide-open legal way to immigrate into this country that illegal immigrants perversely ignore. Illegal immigrants are not rudely jumping to the head of the line; they come in trough a side-door we don’t seem able to close.

Instead of the present  admission policies (plural)  based on viciously absurd selection we have, we could take a page from the Australian and from the Canadian playbooks. That is, we could coolly decide what kind of immigrants we want and tailor a door to those precise dimensions. Presently, we are doing very little of this, however unbelievable it may sound.

Incidentally, I am a product of a rational immigration policy myself.  I was admitted on merit alone. I rest my case!

On to the next misconstrued idea: In fact, in reality, to be allowed to become a US citizen, to take American citizenship, requires several years of residence in this country after being legally admitted.

Hence, personal preference plays little role in determining which immigrant does not become a US citizen. I don’t have the numbers but I am sure that, as a rule, the vast majority of legal immigrants adopt American citizenship shortly after they are legally empowered to do so. It is true that, in theory, some hesitation, some problems may arise in connection with some countries of origin who do not wish to recognize dual nationality. In practice, depriving anyone of his passport is low on the list of priorities of all countries from which new US citizens originate.

The consequence of this scenario is that, contrary to what I think is a widespread notion, there is no horde of legal immigrants living in this country and peevishly and disloyally refusing to take American citizenship.

It also follows that there is no mass of illegal immigrants who obstinately refuse American citizenship. It’s not available to them, period.

If follows from these simple observations that with simple changes in the laws governing immigration, you can modify profoundly the prospects of SS. Conservatives have given this solution essentially not consideration. Yet, contemplating significant policy changes is more dignified and more in line with conservative seriousness than are gross and self-defeating exaggerations as employed by Governor Perry.

Incidentally, at this point, hours before the third Republican debate, I would vote for Perry.

If you want more thinking material about immigration, there is a direct link on this blog to my co-authored article on immigration published in The Independent Review: “If Mexicans and Americans….”

Atlas Shrugged Part II

Warren Gibson Current Events, Liberty, Politics , , ,

I got around to seeing the movie this morning along with about ten other folk. I was reminded of why I don’t go to movie theaters: they’re run by sadists who like to torment people with a quarter hour of promos following the advertised starting time, meat-locker temperatures and ear-splitting sound. I didn’t bring my wife knowing she couldn’t have endured the torment but I’ll get the DVD later.

So, what of the movie? Quite good, mostly. The screenplay is faithful to the novel, thanks, no doubt, to David Kelley. The special effects, notably the tunnel disaster and the airplane chase and crash, are powerful. I wasn’t bothered by the change to an all-new cast. Rearden’s trial was done well. The acting, however, is mixed. Rearden is good and the bad guys are good but Dagny, who is really the central character, was a disappointment. She looked almost bored as she piloted her plane toward what increasingly looked like death. Only later did she crank up the intensity.

Just a couple of nits: two men can’t lift a concrete railroad tie. Galt tells Dagny not to move because she’s hurt and then extends a hand to drag her out of the wrecked plane. A few others but nothing substantial, really.

I give it 3.5 stars out of 4, but I’m sure the critics won’t agree. It looks like the movie will follow Part I into oblivion, sad to say. One only hopes that DVD sales will pick up and that it will enjoy the same sort of underground success that the novel enjoyed following its scathing reviews.

Power and Happiness (President Obama in India)

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Economics , , , , , ,

There is widespread confusion around between two ideas that should be easy to separate from each other. I keep bumping into it. I had several lengthy discussions of it with strangers on Facebook. Some were of the left, some of the right. I found it in my morning paper under the pen of no less than columnist David Brooks of the New York Times (“Midwest at Dusk”11/7/1)).

I refer to the confusion between the happiness of a country’s citizens and the country’s standing in the world. David Brooks wrote:

“If America can figure out how to build a decent future for the working-class people in this (mid-Atlantic) region, then the US will remain a predominant power. If it can’t, it won’t.”

Like this.

President Obama’s post- “shellacking” visit to India is a good time to clear the confusion.

It may be that there is some sort of connection between the happiness of a country’s citizens (or some) and being a “predominant power.” It may be but it’s far from obvious. You would have to demonstrate it. It would be hard; casual evidence does not support the idea. Deeper research does not either. Continue reading →