A Libertarian's Version of the Obama Race Speech

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of [Barack Obama] that have caused such controversy [among libertarians who are considering supporting him]. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of [the free market]? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered [anti-market]? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from [politicians you have voted for] with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a [candidate's] effort to speak out against perceived [economic] injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of [capitalism] - a view that sees [government as the solution to economic problems], and that elevates what is wrong with [capitalism] above all that we know is right with [capitalism]; a view that sees the [troubles on Wall Street] as rooted primarily in the actions of [corporations], instead of emanating from the perverse [policies of the federal reserve].

As such, [Obama's] comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; [populism-]charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Mark McKinnon Refuses to Attack Obama

I Just Thought This Was Interesting.

From a National Journal interview with Republican media strategist Mark McKinnon, who says he plans to leave John McCain's campaign if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (via PoliticalWire):

"Well, this goes back to a memo that I wrote to the campaign when I came aboard more than a year and a half ago, and I simply let them know that I had spent time with Obama and read his book and I like the guy. I think he has strong character and a fascinating life story, and I disagree with him fundamentally on issues like Iraq and trade and a number of others. But I just flashed forward to the improbable scenario, at that time seemingly improbable, that John McCain and Barack Obama might face off against one other. And I just told them at the time that I thought that I would be uncomfortable being on the front lines -- being as aggressive as you need to be in a presidential campaign -- and not only that I would be uncomfortable, but that it would be bad for the campaign, and that if that circumstance were to come to be, that I would just take a step to the sidelines and continue to support John McCain 100 percent and be No. 1 fan and cheerleader. But just kind of take myself out of the front lines."

The lesson here for me is: Even if you disagree with some of Obama's policies, you might consider voting for him based on his integrity and inspiring political style.

Update: The New York Sun reports on "Obamacans": Republicans so disgusted with their party's warmongering and profligate spending that they're crossing the party line to support Barack.

Barack Obama: Semi-Free Trader

When talking to skeptical libertarians about Barack Obama, one of the first criticisms I usually hear is that Obama is a "protectionist" on trade issues. Obama isn't a total free trader, but I completely reject applying the P-word to him. Obama's actual trade policy - like almost all of his positions - defies such simple labels in favor of nuance. Trade issues may not win Obama any libertarian fans, but I don't believe that he's nearly bad enough on the issue to negate all of the other points in his favor.

Connsider that Obama voted for free trade with Peru and Oman, while rejecting the Central American Free Trade Agreement. So what was the difference? Obama has said that he will support free trade with Central American countries if environmental and labor protections are included in the treaties. That's not the position of someone who believes in an unfettered free market. But it also doesn't make Obama a "fair weather free trader," as the Weekly Standard called him.

But what of Obama's plan to withdraw from NAFTA? There is no such plan. Obama blasted NAFTA to factory workers in Ohio earlier this month for the jobs that it has destroyed (it would be nice if he talked more about the jobs it created, but consider the audience). But the harshest policy proposal he has made is a plan to amend the agreement to include more environmental and labor protections.

In fact, one of the central planks in Obama's trade policy is to press the World Trade Organization to press foreign countires honor their commitments and stop giving out unfair subsidies. He has also called for America to reduce its agriculture subsidies. John Edwards-style populism this is not.

As I understand it, Obama's various positions and statements on trade can be summarized thusly: Trade is good for America and good for the world. But some people are hurt by free trade, and the government should help them through retraining and income support. The United States should also tread carefully as it moves toward free trade, making sure that trade agreements contain environmental and labor protections, and that other countries abide by their free trade commitments. We can not and should not stop globalization, but there is a role for government in smoothing over its rough edges.

As The Economist - itself a stalwart champion of free trade - notes:

Mr Obama understands economics better than he lets on. In his book “The Audacity of Hope”, he recognises that a tariff on imported steel may provide temporary relief to American steelmakers, but it will also make every American manufacturer that uses steel, from carmakers to housebuilders, less competitive. When put on the spot and asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, he says that would cause more job losses than gains.

Two Unlikely Endorsements

1. Freedom Communications CEO Scott Flanders. Freedom, which owns the Orange County Register and several small papers, is libertarian to the core. The Register was the only major American newspaper to editorialize against interning Japanese-Americans during World War II. From a Register columnist's account of the Flanders announcement:

Flanders said that in this election, for him, "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of Iraq."

OK, I'm thinking, if you really mean that, there's only one major candidate you can support. But there's no way you are going to stand there and say you support him.

Editorial writer Steve Greenhut told Flanders he thought he was really making an argument for not voting. Not true, Flanders said, and then he did it. He said the words, "Barack Obama." As in, that's who any true freedom-lover should vote for.

...

But there was a hush as Flanders reasoned that Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act.

Obama will probably raise taxes, Flanders says, (although, then again, maybe he won't, ala J.F.K.) and in 2012, it will be time to put a Republican in the White House.

2. Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec. Kmiec, who was head of the office of legal council for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, is a conservative, not a libertarian. But I think libertarians might be interested in the reasoning that led him to come out for Obama. An excerpt from a blog post he wrote for Slate:

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals [the role of government, how to interpret the Constitution, cultural issues such as abortion], but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

Two More Points Against Barr

I don't hate Bob Barr. I think it's admirable that, after leaving Congress, he's repudiated many of his far-right positions, including support for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Barr and I agree on many issues. But I have trouble believing that the possible Libertarian Party presidential candidate is actually a libertarian, rather than a philosophical conservative who holds many libertarian positions.

As I wrote earlier, Barr opposes abortion and immigration (illegal and legal) and believes that it's fine for the State of Georgia to give a 10 year prison sentence to a teenager who received oral sex because "the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives" that this is an appropriate penalty.

Now, LP presidential contender George Phillies gives me two more reasons to suspect that Barr isn't fully committed to liberty:
- Last year, while campaigning for the Republican governor of Kentucky, Barr attacked the Democratic candidate because she doesn't support prayer in public schools. Phillies puts it well when he says: "No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school."
- Barr runs a PAC (political action committee) that gives money to conservative Republicans, such as Senators Saxby Chambliss and John Sununu - both supporters of such un-libertarian positions as greater government spying, confronting Iran and not easing immigration restrictions.

"But Obama holds un-libertarian stances on plenty of issues too," you might argue.

He does. But I think there's a difference. Obama supports some non-libertarian legislation, while also believing in libertarian values like tolerance, individual choice and separation of church and state. Barr holds libertarian positions on many issues, while demonstrating intolerant, authoritarian and theocratic tendencies.

Voting for Barr - who can't be elected - instead of Obama - who can - in the hope that you're making a statement for libertarian values is truly a wasted vote.

More than 4,000

The media has been making a big deal this week about how the American military casualty count in Iraq has reached the grim milestone of 4,000 dead.

But that's not the only measurement of the horror of this war. Consider:

- The tens of thousands - or is it hundreds of thousands? - of dead Iraqis.
- Over 170 dead American contractors.
- Over 29,000 wounded American soldiers.
- Hundreds of dead soldiers and contractors from Britain and other coalition countries.
- Five million Iraqi refugees.
- $500 billion spent so far, with trillions more still to come.
- Torture. Eroded civil liberties. Increased anti-American sentiment abroad. Etc., etc., etc.

The 3,271 American soldiers killed so far in combat in Iraq are more than the number of combat deaths in the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, all of the various Indian wars and the Spanish-American War.

Given all this, I can't for the life of me understand how people like Kevin Williamson can call themselves libertarians, and then say nutty things like this to explain why they are opposing Obama:

"Wars end. Entitlement programs do not."

And this:

"Unfortunately, libertarians are famously susceptible to this sort of temptation [to elevate the war issue], e.g. Murray Rothbard's counterproductive embrace of the anti-Vietnam war moonbats of his day, or Ron Paul's fevered courting of the hate-America Left."

Apart from the fact that dead people don't come back after "wars end," Williamson ignores the fact that, under a John McCain or Hillary Clinton presidency, wars aren't going to be ending at all.

An Opening on Drugs

Last month, we learned that more than one of every 100 Americans is living in a jail or prison, mainly because of the insane War on Drugs. Will the next president end this madness and legalize drugs? Not a chance. Not even if the next president was Tommy Chong (a Drug War victim himself).

But maybe things could get better. Slowly. In baby steps.

One of those baby steps came today, when U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said that he intends to introduce legislation decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. Will Frank's bill pass? Not a chance. But maybe Americans are finally ready to talk about drug laws and their effects. And maybe there are some positive changes that could come at the margins. Like letting states decide whether or not they want legal medical marijuana. Or ending the militarization of drug police.

Last year in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton called for an end to federal raids in states where medical use of marijuana is legal, while Sen. John McCain backtracked on an earlier promise to end the raids.

And Obama? He takes it a step further than Clinton: Full decriminalization.

Take heart, libertarians. There's finally movement on this issue.

Update: Likely Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr was a pretty hardcore drug warrior back when he was in Congress. Now he says that drug laws should be left to the states, though he clearly still supports these laws. From a recent interview with KFNX radio:

"I'm working through some of those individual liberties issues but also believe very strongly that, just as when I was in the Republican Party, I did not agree with everything the Republican Party stood for, everything in its platform, and certainly there's a lot of room in the Libertarian Party for people who have differing views on drugs." (my emphasis)

John McCain: Not-So-Reluctant Warrior

There's an interesting story in the L.A. Times today about John McCain's history of supporting the Iraq war. The highlights:
- McCain predicted a quick and easy victory.
- He didn't read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.
- He co-sponsored the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which called for "regime change" in Iraq (Bill Clinton signed the law).

Enter Bob Barr

It's March: That time of year when the Libertarian Party traditionally rounds up its usual cast of characters to compete to be the party's sacrificial lamb in November.

This year's crop includes ex-Nevada LP chair Jim Burns, bus driver Dave Hollist, software company owner Mike "Jingo" Jingozian, marijuana legalization activist Steve Kubby, college professor George Phillies, sports handicapper and gambling TV show host Wayne Allyn Root and research scientist Mary Ruwart.

What do all of men and women have in common? Not one of them has ever held elective office, and most Americans have never heard of any of them. That almost guarantees that none of them would have any hope of getting their message out through the news media. And as we've seen in the past, Libertarians who get ignored don't have very impressive results.

On Friday, however, The Washington Times reported that Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia, is interested in the LP presidential nomination. If Barr mounts a serious campaign, I have no doubt that he could be the Libertarian nominee. He might even have some success raising money and getting media attention.

Since leaving the Republican Party in 2004, Barr has been a vocal opponent of federal spying on Americans and other violations of civil liberties. But Barr is no libertarian.

- Barr opposes gay rights. He sponsored a law that barred the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.
- Until recently, when he reversed himself, Barr supported the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs. His new stance on easing drug laws seems less than wholehearted.
- He doesn't believe in sexual freedom. Last year he wrote an op-ed defending a 10-year sentence given to a 17-year-old boy who received oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. "Wilson committed acts that the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives across the state ... should be punished," he wrote.
- He has consistently opposed immigration, both legal and illegal. He has voted against H1-B visas for high-tech workers, supported deploying the military along the U.S.-Mexico border and sponsored a bill to outlaw birthright citizenship.
- He opposes abortion, even though he reportedly paid for his second wife (of three) to have an abortion in the 1980s.
- In 1999, Barr tried to ban the practice of the Wiccan religion in the U.S. miltary.

If you're a conservative who thinks that John McCain doesn't want to cut taxes enough, then vote for Barr. If you're a real libertarian, you can do better.

Another Obama Endorsement

First Amendment champion Hugh Hefner supports the O-man. I note this mainly because it's just cool. But Hefner does consider himself a libertarian, of sorts.