How to Enjoy the Debt Ceiling Fight

 | 

I am enjoying the fight in Washington, D.C., over the debt ceiling — from afar.

If you want the inside dope on what’s happening right now, I don’t have it. I am 3,000 miles away from it, and I have work to do. To me the fight in Washington has mainly been background noise.

In the cocoon of left-liberalism in which I live, the echo is that the “right-wing fanatics in Congress” have gone berserk. That’s what Paul Krugman said in the New York Times, and he is such a smart man. And here is E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, July 21:

“The tea party lives in an intellectual bubble where the answers to every problem lie in books by F.A. Hayek, Glenn Beck or Ayn Rand. Rand's anti-government writings, regarded by her followers as modern-day scripture — Rand, an atheist, would have bridled at that comparison — are particularly instructive.

“When the hero of Rand's breakthrough novel ‘The Fountainhead’ doesn’t get what he wants, he blows up a building. Rand’s followers see that as gallant. So perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that blowing up our government doesn’t seem to be a big deal to some of the new radical individualists in our House of Representatives.”

I turn to the No. 1 radical-individualist web page, and see a denunciation of the Tea Party from another place. Here is Brian Wilson on LewRockwell.com, July 23, claming that the Republicans are really progressives:

“When you assume the Republicans are shills for progressivism, the actions make sense and are easily predictable. If the Republicans won the Debt Debate, government spending would really be cut. Which of course, they don’t want. So they had to throw the fight. Unfortunately, like TV wrestling, it becomes more and more obvious the game is rigged. It's as if the rulers in Washington don't even care if we believe their staged fight. It's just a kabuki ritual they have to perform before stealing more of our Freedom.”

Some folks are never satisfied. Being unsatisfied is part of who they are. Not I; some things I find very satisfying. I tend to agree with George Will, who said on July 22 that the Tea Party is “the most welcome political development since the Goldwater insurgency in 1964.”

These are our people. They are for smaller government. They are against the spending and debt. They are for the constitution. I should be on their side because they are on my side.

It pains some libertarians to identify with the Tea Party. Libertarians see themselves as intellectuals, and as political movements go, the Tea Party is middlebrow tending toward lowbrow. Its people listen to Sarah Palin, B.A., Communications, University of Idaho, and Glenn Beck, whose most advanced degree is from Sehome High School, Bellingham, Wash. These Tea Party people know nothing of Lysander Spooner, the Austrian theory of the trade cycle, or the legal doctrine of substantive due process. I recall the comment by Jeffrey Friedman, Ph.D., Yale, and the editor of Critical Review (a publication I can follow only about a quarter of the time) that the Tea Party had trashed the image of libertarianism on university campuses.

Probably so. Still, the Tea Party kicks butt. In 2010, it got a cadre of rabble-rousers elected to Congress. In this debt-ceiling fight, the new Republicans provoke the furious denunciations of the Krugmans, Dionnes, and other stalwarts of the welfare state. You wouldn’t be seeing these fulminations, including Dionne’s furious blast at a novel published nine years before he was born, if the Tea Party weren’t threatening the left-liberal project.

I love it.

How it’s going to work out, I don’t know. I doubt the Left’s hysteria about a worldwide economic crisis that will flush Americans’ 401(l) money down the drain — if this were so, I think, the stock market would have fallen 20% by now — but I don’t know. The market is not all-knowing, and sometimes it comes down with a thump. I wonder whether the promises offered by President Obama and the Senate Democrats to cut two or three trillions in spending are any good. I don’t know that, either, but even if they break their promises, it seems far better to extract those promises now and pin them to their shirts.

Get while the getting’s good, my daddy used to say.

Will the people turn against the Republicans as they did in 1995? Maybe. Or will a large, vague, unenforceable deal work to Obama’s advantage, allowing him to run as a moderate, beat the Republican nominee in 2012, and save the welfare state? That’s the thesis of George Will, who urges the Republicans not to fall for it. I don’t know how they should play their cards, and unlike Will, I am not going to instruct them. I assume they know what they’re doing, and if they don’t, there is nothing I can do about it.

I hear a muted noise from 3,000 miles away, and note that the fight is still on.

I cheer my side.




Share This


Imagine That!

 | 

You have to be of relatively advanced age to appreciate the grotesque irony that has just been reported. It turns out — oh, my God (that’s OMG for those who live their lives through email) — that hippie-peacenik icon John Lennon was a closet Republican!

And not just some RINO-type, country-club, apologetic, liberal-media-ass-kissing, non-threatening Republican, but a Reagan supporter!

Yes, pick yourself up off the floor. This amazing fact is revealed by Lennon musical sidekick Fred Seaman. Seaman makes his startling disclosure in the upcoming documentary Beatles Stories, in an interview with the flick’s director Seth Swirsky. Seaman revealed that in his more mature life (that is, by the late 1970s), Lennon felt embarrassed by his younger radicalism, and relished debating leftists, including Seaman’s uncle, an "old-time communist."

Lennon said of Reagan, whom he had met at a sporting event, that he would have voted for the politician had he been a US citizen.

All of this inspires me to update Lennon’s signature song, “Imagine”:

Imagine there’s no commies.

It’s easy if you try.

No damn liberals

To tax us on the sly.

Imagine all the money

In our hands to stay!

 

Imagine all the countries —

It isn’t hard to do —

Living in total freedom

And of religion too.

Imagine all the people

Trading goods in peace.

 

You may say I’m a right-winger

But I’m not the only one.

I hope the leftists grow up

So the world can be as one.




Share This


The Significance of Ron Paul

 | 

Rep. Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, is once again running for president.

No member of the House of Representatives has run for president and won since James A. Garfield in 1880 (and Garfield had been elected to the Senate just before his election as president). No one as old as Paul has been elected president. He would be 77 when he took the oath of office. Ronald Reagan was 69.

Most of all, no one as radical as Paul has been elected president during the modern era.

There are hopes that this time around, Paul will break through to mainstream America because his argument against foreign war, for a sound currency, and for large cuts in spending will catch fire. It will with some voters, but political ideas acceptable to the American public don’t change that fast.

I said this two weeks ago in a talk to my state’s conservative activists — an audience that included Paul supporters. I said I agreed with Paul on some important things, but that he could not win. One came up to me afterward and said, “You know, every time you say that, you hurt his movement. He got as far as he did last time because thousands of people thought he could win.”

And they were mistaken. But he changed some minds. He made arguments that nobody else would have made — and some of those arguments look better four years later.

In 2007, no Republican candidates were arguing against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan except Paul. Now the Politico website reports a rise of war weariness and even “isolationism” among the Republicans in Congress. They are far from a majority, but they are a faction. And there is another libertarian candidate in the race, former governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who also calls for getting out of the foreign wars immediately.

Four years ago, no Republican candidates other than Paul were talking about protecting the value of the dollar. I still haven’t heard them doing it — but gold is above $1,500 an ounce, and the US dollar is below the Canadian and Australian dollars. The topic ripens.

Four years ago, there was no quasi-libertarian Tea Party movement, and Ron Paul’s quasi-libertarian son Rand Paul was not in the US Senate.

The ground has changed.

Still, it has not changed enough to elect Ron Paul as president. There is no point collecting dandelion seeds, such as the CNN/Opinion Research poll last week, which showed Paul running stronger against President Obama than any other Republican candidate. I have heard that poll cited several times, never mentioning that the split was Obama, 52%, Paul, 45%. Anyway, it was a poll taken 15 months before the election, which means it was a poll of a public not paying attention. Paul, in particular, had not been seriously attacked.

A few days later, he was. Conservative columnist Michael Gerson of the Washington Post ripped into him for his answer to a reporter’s question. The question was whether Paul favored the legalization of heroin.

There is a purpose in questions like that. It is to see whether the reporter can catch the candidate saying something crazy — not crazy, maybe, to a social scientist or a philosopher, but crazy to a political operative, or Joe Sixpack.

The role of the radical candidate is to take the taboo stands, fight valiantly, lose, and change the political ground.

In his answer, Paul compared freedom to use drugs to freedom of religion. Here is how Gerson paraphrased it: “If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart.” This, Gerson sneered, is the essence of libertarianism.

But Paul had said more than that. Wrote Gerson: “Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: ‘Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.’ Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline.”

Gerson concluded that any candidate who supports “the legalization of heroin while mocking addicts” is marginal and unserious. His column was a way of looking at the Republican list and scratching out the name of Ron Paul.

Libertarians can rail against Gerson as biased, which of course he is. He is an opinion columnist. Bias is part of his job description. But if your candidate is taken seriously, which Paul was not in 2008, this is the kind of attention he is going to get — and here it is attention from a conservative. If Paul became the Republican frontrunner, the pundits of the Left would go after him with machetes and crowbars.

They haven’t, because they delight in schism on the Right. But if he becomes the frontrunner, they will. And Paul has said plenty of things they can use to make a bogeyman out of him. Legalize heroin. Imagine what they could do with that.

Here is the reality. Certain political stands are safe, others are daring, and some are taboo. The role of the radical candidate is to take the taboo stands, fight valiantly, lose, and change the political ground. It is a valuable role to play: it is changing the field so that other good candidates, later on, can win.

What other candidate? Maybe Rand Paul in 2016 or 2020. Maybe Gary Johnson. One can imagine a Mitch Daniels-Gary Johnson ticket in 2012, with Johnson running in the top position later. Once a libertarian faction has been established in the Republican Party and is built into a substantial faction, room is made for other candidates, ones aiming more directly at winning, to have a go.

On the day that Paul announced, I had lunch with his 2008 campaign manager, Lew Moore. The timing was accidental; I had met Moore among the conservative activists two weeks before, and I hadn’t seen him in years. I asked him: when Paul ran in 2008, did the congressman seriously think he could win, or was it mostly to change the debate?

Without denying that Paul had had some chance of winning, Moore said the campaign was mostly about changing the debate. He said, “That is what his whole life has been about.”

And, at 75, Paul is not done. You have to admire the man. A lone congressman from Texas, never enjoying the support of his party’s establishment, has changed the political ground within the Republican Party.

And maybe he will change it some more.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.