The Politics of Economics

I was just reading another positive spin on the economy.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080604-1420-economy.html

As a commenter observes: "Good News! Eh? must be Bush's fault lol."

I don't deny that everything negative the doom and gloom pundits write about the economy might come true.  But one reason I am very skeptical is the political nature of economics reporting.  Most on Wall Street are Democrats, and most reporters are Democrats.  This is an election year with an incumbent Republican they want to replace.  They are thus motivated to emphasize the bad news.

Political Party Labels

Brian Holtz wrote one of the better statements I've seen on political party differences:

I try to use only "nanny-state parties" when referring to the Ds and Rs.

I don't use "alternative party" as much as I should, perhaps because there are too many people who consider the two incumbent parties as alternatives to each other.

I also try to avoid using "Republicrats" and "Demopublicans", or "Coke and Pepsi" etc. The D's are discernibly leftist, the R's are discernibly rightist, and to pretend they're indistinguishable marks us as politically illiterate. More importantly, treating them as indistinguishable throws away our differentiation against the voter's other available choices (Green and CP). We are the only party that has evolved beyond the obsolete left-vs.-right dichotomy, and are the only party that wants to legislate neither personal morality nor economic equality. When we suggest that the primary difference between the LP and the Ds/Rs is that they're in power and we're not, we suggest that 1) we would probably be corrupted by power too and 2) any non-incumbent party is as good as any other.

I will always believe that our marketing should be built around the Nolan Chart. Does anyone know whether the Greens or CP ever try use the Nolan Chart and claim that they occupy the moral high ground on it? I'd be very surprised if they did.

No Brian, I doubt the Greens or others would like the results they'd get with the Nolan Chart. However, I doubt they'd ask the questions and label the results in the same manner as Nolan or other libertarians.

Will Obama "Root for America"?

I heard Libertarian Party presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root interviewed on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning. I caught only a small segment where Wayne described studying the same major as Barack Obama at Columbia University in the class of 1983.

During class one day in 1981, someone ran into the auditorium and shouted, "President Reagan has been shot. They assassinated him. He's dead." Immediately, the "entire class" of 300 or so students stood up and celebrated. They were high-fiving and shouting with joy. At that point, they incorrectly believed the patriotic anti-communist American president was dead, and they were very happy about that. Wayne was horrified.

Wayne then noted that many of his Columbia University classmates now dominate the news media and other influential establishments in our society. I infer that Wayne Allyn Root believes these elite Americans are essentially anti-American socialists.

Thoughts on Libertarian Party Campaigning

I've been think about the LP and how its candidate run their campaigns. I'm guessing the problem is at least partly in delivery. Most LP members have apparently never heard of Emily Post. Then there are non-focused statements that meander off into libertarain obsessions regarding the evils of the state. But back to the campaigning:

IMHO, the top five issues that libertarians should communicate better to non-libertarians should closely align with public opinion polls.

LP candidates should describe to non-libertarians the issues that concern mainstream voters, and tell them how libertarian policies help them. And I use the word "them" intentionally. Most voters are greedy selfish bastards, so they want to know what's in it for them. Even voters willing to cut programs are not willing to cut their own handouts.

According to polls like this, voter priorities are the economy, Iraq war, healthcare, immigration, and terrorism. They don't want to hear about libertarian obsessions with guns, drugs, 9/11 conspiracies, and the military-industrial complex. Candidates should communicate voter issues, not libertarian ones. Keep it short, simple, and focused.

So in summary, perhaps LP candidates need simple focused sound-bite descriptions of libertarian policies and expected results for the top issues of interest to mainstream voters.

Should the US Withdraw from the United Nations?

Ron Paul, other libertarians, and some conservatives talk of withdrawing the US from the United Nations. Sounds good. However, William F. Buckley and others on the right think another course of action might be better. Stay in the UN, but don't vote -- except to veto the really bad stuff.

As Willaim Rusher writes:

What to do? Pulling out of the United Nations would not eliminate it. It would keep on doing its best to body-block the United States, and hostility to this country would not only continue but increase, dramatically highlighted by our solitary absence from the organization. But staying in and doing nothing is scarcely better.

Ideally, the best course would probably be to encourage the founding and growth of a new group of the world's truly democratic nations, dedicated to addressing the world's problems with their wealth and wisdom, and gradually diminish the United Nations's pretensions. But such undeniably democratic nations as France and Germany would undoubtedly refuse to go along with such a scheme, preferring to pursue their current strategy in the United Nations.

In the circumstances, therefore, the best course may be the one proposed by the late James Burnham: for the United States to announce that it will continue supporting the beneficial activities of the United Nations in such matters as world health, but henceforth will not participate in, or vote on, its deliberations involving major political issues. (We would retain, however, our veto power, to block seriously offensive actions.) The United Nations would undoubtedly continue, and probably increase, its issuance of anti-American manifestos of one sort and another, but their essential unimportance would become steadily more apparent as the years rolled by.

Freedom through Aggression

I was challenged by a friend, presumably of the libertarian-left, to respond to the following claim: "There are absolutely NO examples of acts of aggression expanding the freedom of those who were aggressed against."

Talk about a target-rich environment. I quickly came up with the following examples:

- German Nazism
- Japanese imperialism
- Italian fascism
- North Korean communism
- Soviet communism
- Afghan Taliban
- Saddam's Baathism
- British colonialism

All these were eliminated partly or totally through US intervention, aggression, and the military’s superior ability to kill people and break things. The US intervened, and its military used massive force and aggression to achieve those victories. People bled profusely and many died. In each case, greater liberty was the result.

I think many left wingers, libertarians, and others live in a dream world – a kind of Shangri-La – where they fantasize that all is free and peaceful until some bully American president screws things up by intervening and ordering the US military into action. Well, that’s not the way the world works. Indeed, even at an individual level, people would rob you blind and hurt you severely without the police or some other collective aggressive security force.

The world mostly sucks as far as liberty is concerned. Other than the Western nations, most of the world is run by thoroughly corrupt and often unelected thugs who care not about individual rights of any kind. Fortunately, freedom is on the rise, largely due to American intervention and aggression. That these are forceful acts of intevention tells us nothing about the purpose for which they’re used. You can kill someone to secure liberty or to take it away. You must always be willing to fight for freedom, or you will soon lose it.

In the real world, blood must often be shed to obtain and preserve liberty. Even the overly-admired Swiss selfishly keep their own little piece of freedom by arming all able-bodied males in a system of compulsory military service. No one attacks them because they are so well prepared to respond aggressively.

Why Mourn Bhutto?

While the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is horrifying, I don't know if she as an individual is worth mourning. I read the Wikipedia entry on her and the charges against her, and it sounds like she and her husband were fabulously corrupt. We're talking in excess of $1 billion in criminal activities. Charges come from reputable Western nations, not just her political opponents in Pakistan. Also, she is aligned with the international socialist movement.

If I were a Pakistani given the choice of voting for Bhutto, Musharraf, or Sharif, I think I'd slit my wrist. I'm guessing Masharraf is the lesser evil, but it's a wild guess.

Government Mail

I ordered a roll of 100 postal stamps by mail in early December. The US Postal Service cashed my check, but the stamps were lost in the mail. I'm out $41.00.

UPDATE: The Christmas card my mother mailed my son, postmarked December 8, just arrived yesterday, December 31.

UPDATE: An online retailer shipped a package to me on Dec 18 via the US Post Office. It had not yet arrived as of Jan 3. I used the tracking number to look at the shipping status. I found out that the package sat in their L.A. "Sortation Center" for about a week after spending 11 days in their Dallas center. They claim it will be delivered on Jan 4 after more than 2-1/2 weeks in transit. I've found UPS and FedEx ground services take only 2 - 7 days.

UPDATE: I am pleased to report that a friend of mine explained the problem with the late package: "It's because Postal rates are too low."

UPDATE: On January 7, I received the following response to my lost stamps:

According to our information, We make every effort to ensure our orders are processed and received within 2-3 weeks. However, due to the rate increase as well as the release of some very popular stamps, orders are taking longer to process. You can expect to receive your order in 1-2 weeks. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

UPDATE: On February 2, I went to the Post Office to ask about the missing stamps. I was told I need to go to a different Post Office.

UPDATE: The week of Feb 4-8, I made a few calls to the local PO mail order number, after which I got a message recorder where I was "allowed" to leave a message with my complaint. Hearing nothing, I left another message on another day. No reply. No stamps yet.

UPDATE: On Feb 12, Monica at the PO called me to say she found out the problem. They were looking for "Bob" Giramma rather than "Robert" Giramma. Good thing my last name is not Smith or Jones. Having finally determined that some people named Robert are nicknamed Bob (and totally ignoring that the family name "Giramma" is extremely rare), they could look up the sale information. They claim to have sent me the stamps on Dec 12. They will send a replacement order by certified mail soon. Can I tell the IRS my taxes are late because the Post Office hasn't been able to sell me stamps? Good thing I didn't order those "Forever Stamps."

A friend reassures me that "There's hope."
Postcard penned in 1929 arrives in Boston mailbox from Seattle

SUCCESS: After a mere two months or so since ordering my "stamps by mail" from the US Postal Service, today (Feb 13, 2008) I hold in my hands A COIL OF 100 US POSTAL STAMPS! There's a "Mail Theft and Vandalism Complaint" form (PS 2016) to complete, but why should buying stamps be any easier than filing your federal tax return?

Remember the Guardians of Freedom at Christmas

"A Soldier's Silent Night"

Click Here To Listen

.

T'was the night before Christmas

He lived all alone,

in a one bedroom house

made of plaster and stone.

...

The soldier awakened

I heard his rough voice,

"Santa don't cry,

This life is MY choice.

.

I fight for freedom,

I don't ask for more;

My life is my God,

My country, My corps."

...

Then, the soldier rolled over,

In a voice soft and pure,

He whispered, "Carry on Santa,

It's Christmas Day, all is secure."

Read the whole thing here. or listen to it here.

And if this doesn't bring a tear to your eyes, then you're a far better Vulcan than I.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Romney vs Giuliani from my libertarian perspective

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rudy Giuliani are libertarians to most of us who support that cause. Personally, I believe Romney would be the better of the two, when measured from my libertarian-right perspective.

Romney is exceptionally brilliant, while Giuliani is merely very smart. Romney has an impressive private sector resume, while Giuliani has spent most of his career in government and the (non-productive) legal sector. Both men will advocate far more government than I'd like, but Romney is more likely to favor mandates that involve private sector competition. Romney ran a diverse state; Giuliani ran a specific city.

So in the categories of competence and free market experience, Mitt Romney is my preferred candidate over Rudy Giuliani. Despite Ron Paul's foreign policy errors, he is still my top choice among the major party candidates.

My friend Bruce Cohen has some related thoughts.

Unintended consequences of non-interventionism

Reflections on 'Blowback'
By Lee Harris

Excerpt:

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

Full article:
http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121207A

Status of GWOT in Aghanistan and Iraq

Regarding the so-called GWOT, I'm thinking about the status of military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. One at a time:

The Taliban and al Qaeda lost their base of operations within a few months, and they've not gained it back. Afghanistan, however, is yet another dysfunctional country run by culturally backward Muslims. If the US and NATO leave, the Taliban and al Qaeda will be back. So we're stuck there, for the time being. You can call that victory or failure, but that's the way it is. If you really want to defeat them, you need to invade northwestern Pakistan and accept the subsequently likely bloodbath.

While the initial military invasion of Iraq was very successful in overthrowing the Baathist regime, President Bush commanded the occupation badly. Of course, anyone can say that with 20/20 hindsight. But Iraq now has the potential of turning into a success for the US, however unintentional the path may be. Al Qaeda chose to make a stand there, and they are close to defeat. The Islamic world, much of which used to sympathize with al Qaeda, has mostly turned against them.

You cannot have liberty when individuals and groups are killing people worldwide in the name of religious tyranny. To defeat such savage obstacles to liberty, we must kill as they do. The difference is in the purpose, and the purpose of freedom is worth lots of blood -- preferably theirs.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The Ron Paul Phenomenon

It looks to me like Republican Ron Paul is getting more enthusiasm, support, and contributions from LP members than I've ever seen before. I bet he's taken in more money, and gotten Libertarian Party (LP) members to work more hours, than the entire party gets in a typical [year, decade, eternity?]. He gets some of his strongest support from the anarcho-libertarians, even though several important Ron Paul policies are incompatible with their beliefs. Party members need to think about this.

Surely Dr Paul gets lots of publicity by being in the GOP, which puts him on TV in political debates that seem to occur almost every week. But most LP members don't care much about that venue or party. The official party candidates are getting almost zero attention, which is normal on the mainstream national level but not necessarily among party members.

What is it? Can the Ron Paul phenomenon be leveraged by the LP now or in the future? If libertarians can only get this much attention by running in one of the big two parties, then maybe Libertarians need to think about turning the party into an activist wing of one of those parties and field libertarian candidates there.

Or maybe Ron Paul is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon capitalizing on a unique alignment of the stars.

Has there been any discussion of this on any blogs or e-mail lists?