The Christian Libertarian Party

Edwidge Danticat writes in the Sunday Washington Post Outlook about her experience in doing a film about torture in her home country of Haiti.

She leaves unsaid what we all know, that U.S. support of torturous regimes, including technical support on the art and craft of torture, is nothing new. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the old cold warriors surrounding George W. Bush are insisting on torture as an item in the U.S. arsenal, since for them it has always been there.

There is a lesson in Ms. Danticat's article. She marks on the victims of torture that

...eventually I recognize their hardened core and, more often than not,
their reinforced defiance and renewed commitment to that for which they were abused. When I meet former torturers, they don't proudly stand up
and say, "Here I am, a torturer." Unless they're infamous, they have sought to
compartmentalize their lives.

This is the key question in determining whether it works. Obviously, if it leaves one side more motivated than the other, it does not work. Aside from the fact that it is evil, because it eventually leads to an activiated revolutionary class, it is also STUPID.

We can see this from our experience in Iran. Our support for the Shah and his Secret Police have left us in the situation we are in now, possibly on the brink of war. If we had not supported the Shah and his unsavory practices, we would not face a hostile Islamic Republic.

And yet we have an adminstration and its supporters in Congress who still do not learn from the past. Let us hope that the voters are learning and the Congress is replaced by a majority which will hold real investigations on our support and practice of torture, using its impeachment power when necessary.

The torture issue also calls into question the whole focus of American foreign policy. A policy that is driven by American self-interest, where deals with despotic regimes are tolerated, clearly does not serve either the cause of liberty at home or abroad. It serves the interests of our business community and our military, but this is not the same thing as serving the better interests of our nation. This is why replacing one set of scoundrels with another is only a start. In the long term, a basic paradigm shift is required, one which we offer.

Congressman Joe Schwarz asks in a Washington Post Op-Ed, what's a moderate to do in this politcal climate?

Joe, come in here, the water is fine. My wife's family is from your district and her ex helped run your campaign. We should talk.

In Sunday's Washington Post, George Will reviews Thomas Edsall's latest book on Building Red America. As you might expect, George doesn't like it, although he doesn't argue the facts. Quite to the contrary, he defends the Republican focus on social issues over economic issues.

Edsall notes that one-third of American children -- and almost 70 percent of African American children -- are born to unmarried mothers. Then, in an astonishing passage about this phenomenon, which is the cause of most social pathologies, from crime to schools that cannot teach, he explains how Americans differ concerning what he calls "freedom from the need to maintain the marital or procreative bond." "To social conservatives," he writes, "these developments have signaled an irretrievable and tragic loss. Their reaction has fueled, on the right, a powerful traditionalist govement and a groundswell of support for the Republican Party. To modernists, these developments constitute, at worst, the unfortunate costs of progress, and, at
best -- and this is very much the view on the political left as well as of Democratic Party loyalists -- they constitute a triumph over unconscionable obstacles to the liberation and self-realization of much of the human race." Looking for the real reason for the rise of "Red America"? Read that paragraph again.

An yet Will begins the entire essay noting that the GOP is shaking in fear over the next election. The next election is not what is feared. Both parties fear a third party or a coalition that combines social activism and traditional values. That would be this one.

Michael Abromowitz and Michael A. Fletecher report on President Bush’s September 11th Address to the Nation in the September 12 Washington Post.

I did not watch the speech last night, as I figured it would be more of the same. From the article, it appears I was right. The President continues to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror. It is this linkage that makes the war in Iraq not only ill advised, but immoral.

In essence, George W. Bush started a war in Iraq to attract the terrorists who would otherwise hit other American targets, both here and abroad. Essentially, he has continued a civil war that his Vice President started while he was his father’s Secretary of Defense and, by linking it to the war on terror, TURNED IRAQI CIVILIANS INTO CANNON FODDER in the name of liberation. That is not only cold, that is EVIL. Any Americans who share in that intention, or who vote for Republicans because of it, share in that evil. I am no fan of Saddam Hussein and am glad he is gone. The way that the Administration has turned a simple act of liberation into a continuing conflict for their international and domestic political aims is just plain wrong.

It would be like if aliens landed here and engaged us in a fight over morals, not for our own happiness, but to make a point between the two camps on the nature of good and evil. In the end, we would feel used, not saved. Of course, there are those conservatives who believe that is what morality is about, however they are misguided in both their morality and their support of this war.

I read Michael Lind of the New American Foundation's comments on the death of libertarianism in The Financial Times in the link provided. He could not be more wrong. No movement ever goes away. It will likely take a different form, but some form of libertarianism will reemerge.

Take for example the private savings accounts for Social Security. That was first floated by Ron Brown FOR THE DEMOCRATS in 1992 as a reaction against the payroll tax being used to balance the budget. That hasn't gone away.

Vouchers are dead, but the Charter school movement has taken their place. I predict the most successful chartered schools will include parents on their governing boards. Giving parents more direct control and killing the central bureaucracy is the goal of vouchers. That is called victory by other means.

Last time I heard, Cato was still getting money and the LP was still running candidates. George Bush has been defeated in his efforts, that does not mean Libertarianism is dead. It may just be dead in the GOP (although I doubt that too).

Libertarianism will be a key feature in the party of the center, because that is what the voters want. It may fracture the GOP coalition, but it is an essential feature of ours. So, Libertarians, if you are tired of being mistreated by the GOP and do not like the secular focus of the LP, come right on in here.

As the title says, the rumors of our death are greatly exaggerated.

E.J. Dionne, in the September 5th Washington Post, speculates on the irony of the Democrats doing a counter shift to balance the rise of the southern Republicans. His numbers indicate that maybe the "Lincoln Republicans".

We can only hope, although I am not sure how this will ease our national divide. The punditry seems to think that it will be set in stone. While there is evidence to support this, if history is our guide the only thing constant in American politics is change, often at the hands of new or third parties - which is why I am putting this post here and not on my Christian Left blog. The gerrymander effect may still leave Congress under Republican control, although this is seeming less likely all the time. Wait for an October surprise. If that happens, there will be a demand for something new. Even absent the expected mini-revolution, something has got to give - especially on our most contentious issues.

In Labor Day's Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby presents an excellent analysis which concludes that tax reform may be the best way to attack inequality.

We agree with everything he says, or almost everything. Unionization and an increase in the mimimum wage are necessary parts of the equation and must be done at the same time so that when the minumum wage goes up working conditions, such as air conditioning do not deteriorate. More about this later.

There is only one fly in the ointment - getting the changes he advises done. The political leadership of both parties like rich people. Rich people give them money. The centrist tax reform solutions which we also agree with will be resisted by anyone who sends their legislator a big check, which is why if you are serious about tax reform you must look to campaign finance reform first. We will do that. Our tax reform will also be more attractive to working people, because we have proposed and will end the responsibilty of filing by all but business owners and the wealthiest tax payers. We will also bring together the anti-abortion vote and the living wage vote by increasing the credit for children to an adequate level for a middle class existence. This will allow an end to welfare programs for all but the illiterate, who would be paid to achieve literacy.

Shifting tax benefits to families and tax filing to employers leaves open a loophole that must be filled, since employers may potentially shift their entire payroll cost to this tax credit. In order to avoid this, the minimum wage subject to what would amount to a value added tax would be raised to at least $20,000.00 per year.

Going back to unionization, there is one circumstance where it will not drive jobs offshore - if unions invest their pension funds in the firms where their employer work - especially the multi-national employers or employers with significant off-shore supply chains. Gaining control of these firms will allow for unions to benefit from the Wal-Mart effect in reverse. Rather than demanding a non-union shop, union owned firms will demand that their supply chains be unionized and that a living wage be paid to overseas workers. Further, they will use transfer pricing schemes to assure this happens. If unions wish to survive and have firms that thrive, they will change the way they do business as well as how the firms they own do business and pay their employees. they will als change their longstanding fear of Social Security reform. Mallaby states that tax reform can be used to lower payroll taxes. This is one possible scenario. Another is to meld the payroll taxes for non-retired survivors, disability insurance and Medicare into the business income tax as part of tax reform (lowering net but not gross wages accordingly) and by directing at least a portion of the retirement portion (possibly the employer contribution) to acquiring shares in the employer which would be voted by the union or professional association. Diversivification is important, but this can be accomplished by a joint insurance fund whereby each such firm donates share of its employee or union owned equity each year so that, unless all such funds fail at once, no retiree or employee looses everything in a business failure. This is also a cheaper alternative than a mutual fund, as fund administration is done at the group rather than individual level.

Doing all of these things will truly attack inequality, although it can all start with tax reform.

As time marches on and the inauguration becomes but a memory, it is important to delve into the question: Are the Republicans really corrupt, in thrall to the major corporations who are themselves consummate evil doers, or is there perhaps another explanation? Another way to ask this is, do the Republicans believe their own propaganda, or do they know that they are lying for the benefit of profit?

These questions are important for both parties. They are important for Democrats and Greens because they affect their messages and actions. For instance, if the Republicans truly are crooked than persuasion will have no effect. Rather, investigation is the best tactic. Winning then becomes all-important, because if you are out of power your investigative power is limited. If the top ranks of the party are truly evil than the strategy is to expose this evil to the rank and file Republican so that they will cast off their leadership or flee to the righteous side. This is essentially a neo-populist position. If the Republicans aren’t crooked, then rational argument is possible, as is compromise. It also becomes easier to attract voters from the other side, as then you only need convince them that their leaders are wrong, rather than that they have been duped in a conspiracy. This issue is also important for Democrats because of the adoption of the Democratic Leadership Council types of much of the free trade rhetoric from the other side. Most importantly, a conclusion that the Republicans aren’t crooked can lead to a more genteel polity, as the current tone of debate is frankly caustic.

This question is very important for Republicans. If the higher ups in the party are crooks than to be a Republican voter is to be the hoodwinked member of a criminal conspiracy. Most importantly, this discussion holds up a mirror for the Republicans to see. Whether the question is true or not, it provides a valuable view on how the party and its leadership are perceived by the other side. For the rest of this series, go to my other blog.

Retired diplomat John R. Hamilton writes in The Washington Post about how American state department report cards irritate the rest of the world.

That is part of the reason. The other is that we have a President who thinks he is the leader of the free world. Not just this one. All of them. the sad fact of the matter is, as I wrote in my Iraq essay, that assumption is true if you look at our military treaties which put an American commander (and therefore the commander-in-chief) in charge of all joint operations.

The other part is the report cards, which he describes but does not explain. To explain them you have to reveal who mandates these. The State Department does not do these to get their kicks. Congress makes them. These little requirements get slipped into authorization or appropriations bills as a way to get enough votes to pass. Anyone with an ax to grind can put it in. Of course, these report cards hardly lead to action. Short of war or sanctions (which hurt us more than them), there is no action you can really take against another state. Now, if these reports led to us not supporting dictatorships, like the Saudis for instance, they might have a purpose. However, they are merely a publicity stunt.

If we are truly serious about our principles and want to spread them, we would join with like minded nations in some form of allied government (see the attached essay) which would have the authority to enforce these principles, both here and in other member regions. In fact, aside from control of an allied military and common currency (in which there would be a common economy) that would be its main function, policing the lower levels of regional, state/provincial and local government against acts of tyranny.