Post #3089 J
- One of my companion blogs focuses on my interest in nutrition and dieting. My work tasks are done in certain federal buildings I can always take an elevator to an upper floor (we're talking one or 2 floors up), but I usually climb up the stairs. One building recently repainted its stairwell, writing virtues on the vertical base of the steps: 'enthusiasm', 'initiative', 'decisiveness', 'tactful', 'courageous', 'judgment', 'confidence', 'excellence', etc. I love this concept.
In fact, I would like to extend the concept for other stairwells: 'life', 'liberty', 'property', 'pursuit of happiness', 'rule of law', 'equality of opportunity', 'the Bill of Rights', 'limited government', 'personal responsibility', 'accountability', 'transparency', 'presumption of innocence', 'frugality with public spending', 'balanced budget', 'enumerated powers', 'rotation in office', etc. I would make it mandatory for all able public sector employees in the building to walk up these stairs daily.
- Reason, probably the most well-known libertarian portal, thinks, even after the recent election where the GOP grabbed the White Houston and sustained its Senate majority against heavy odds, that the GOP is increasingly at odds with the American public, given its stands against gay marriage, immigration, and trade (among other things). Now I have some issues with this perspective (even though I'm strongly pro-immigration and pro-trade and accept the right of gays to voluntary relationships).
First of all, let's point out over the past few decades, the Democrats have bitterly opposed trade deals (especially NAFTA, even though President Clinton supported it). In the recent Democrat primary, both Clinton and Sanders opposed TPP. On immigration, Sanders spoke of open borders (free immigration) as a Koch Brothers conspiracy. Let us recall that organized labor is bitterly opposed to immigration as job competition weakening their bargaining position; they similarly see trade as a threat to job security. As for the GOP, over the past few decades the relevant Presidents and lawmakers have been supportive of liberalized trade and immigration. (It is true that media conservatives were outspoken against immigration, but let me point out during the GOP primary, immigration often ranked at the bottom of rated policy issues. It is true that Trump used immigration as his signature issue, but the election was more of a Clinton loss than a Trump victory; Obama's coalition was not as motivated to support Clinton.)
On the question of gay "marriage" let us not forget that POTUS Clinton signed DOMA into law, and both Obama and Clinton opposed gay marriage as late as 2008 (they supported domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays, derided by the latter as second-class marriages). It was only when the federal courts hinted that state marriage laws were discriminatory and unsustainable that Obama flipped his public position. Also, let's point out that Republicans generally defended the principle of traditional state regulation against federal meddling while pro-liberty conservatives like the Paul's called for privatizing marriage. As for Reason, I do not see any GOP effort on the federal level to impose standards or amendments restricting the rights of gays to associate.
Marriage as a heterosexual construct evolved over thousands of years; it has been the foundation for the family construct, a socially sanctioned context for procreation and survival of society. For the 2-3 % of the population which is gay, relationships are not as long-lived or sexually monogamous/exclusive. (Yes, I am aware of significant divorce and infidelity issues among straight marriages, but for example, almost all my relatives, including my parents, grandparents and siblings, have had lifelong marriages.) Procreation and family aren't biologically relevant.
As I have repeatedly noted on Reason and Cato Institute Facebook threads, I see the SCOTUS-imposed gay marriage decisions over state laws a paradoxical matter for libertarians to cheer. On principle, they should argue for privatization of marriage or at least devolving federal authority to the states; states would compete with gay-friendly policies. Using the State to crack down on politically incorrect state laws violates the principle of free association, among other pro-liberty constructs. I also find it odd that they point to suspect political polls showing high public approval for gay marriage. Libertarians often find themselves on the losing side of public opinion on matters of principle (not to mention political campaigns). If public sentiment shifts back towards traditional marriage, are these libertarians willing to change their mind about gay marriage? Give me a break!
- I'm astonished at some libertarian reactions to Trump's abysmal dark inaugural address. (I'll probably publish a relevant one-off review post on it over the coming week.) In particular, Gary North, the self-described "Tea Party Economist", who admits to voting (like me) for Gary Johnson last November, was blown away by it and is already rating it as one of the best ever (noting his academic historian credentials). He likes the way Trump didn't follow the common formula (e.g., calling everyone to unify for the sake of the country) and asserting (in the face of his predecessors) that he is different from the rest: he owes only "the people", not lobbyists, etc., for his victory. He loves the way that Trump manipulates a situation where he sets the rules for discourse, that his opponents are forced by play by his rules--his criteria, not theirs. Lew Rockwell and others love this frat boy act, his shots at "the Establishment". I could go into a long-winded refutation of this nonsense (his phony self-serving populism is transparent), but let me leave the readers with this thought: if "the Establishment" was against Trump, how did he manage to get over $2B in free media coverage, more than all his opponents combined? If he is anti-Establishment, why are so many of his appointees veteran politicians, political operatives, and former generals?
