Once again apologies for re-posting this on the flip side:

The thing is Andy that there is no clear definition of conservative. For myself, I'd define it something along these lines... A conservative believes:

(1) That we live by and large in a good and free country with a tradition and culture that ought to be preserved.

Me, too.

(2) That taxes should be "low" and that there shouldn't be "a lot" of government regulation.

Get specific. How low? Should they be progressive? Are you OK with the regressively capped Social Security payroll deduction? Or would you just privatize Social Security? What would you or wouldn't you have (say) the FDA or the SEC regulate?

(3) That the government should respect the laws and the rights of its citizens - including their economic rights.

Me, too. I argued right here against that dreadful Connecticut public domain case.

(4) That appeals to abstract ideologies not grounded in reality (and in particular not grounded in our own country's tradition and culture) are highly suspect.

I couldn't agree more. Although I’d say that in recent times “conservatives” have been far more prone to voicing platitudes about abstract ideologies than liberals, especially when it comes to "spreading democracy"---a fact many other conservatives will acknowledge. Too bad that it took the Iraq war for so many of them to figure it out.

All of which is to say that both "liberal" and "conservative" are rather meaningless terms you get down to either specific laws or specific people, and what those specific people believe. And as far as I can see, with the exception of a stray renegade or two who slips under the conservative tent because of his strong stand on social issues (see Huckabee, below), the only common thread that unites conservatives is the desire for a carte blanche for corporate business.

---------------------

I see the liberal side of the pool as asking me for a few dollars to maintain the municipal pool. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal beach chairs. Then a few dollars to maintain the municipal soda machine, the municipal ice cream maker, the municipal towel rack, the municipal jacuzzi. And then more and more things are bought for the pool, with almost no input from me and the dollars demanded grow larger and larger. Then the city passes an ordinance stating that I can't even talk about pool rules within 60 days of a city council meeting because that would be electioneering.

Move the decimal point about six places to the right and you're describing your generic no-bid defense contract.

-------------------------

Here's an exercise, JC. Think of two dozen or so of the more prominent "conservatives" in American life these days (including a few honorary dead ones from not that long ago), and then tell us what, exactly, beyond the "maximizing business profits," they have in common.

Well, there's the problem, Andy. Supporting smaller, less intrusive government is completely different than "maximizing business profits."

In theory, yes. In practice---in terms of what the real world effects of that particular model of "less intrusive government" has come to mean---don't make me laugh.

And to the extent that you're consistent in your own beliefs, to that extent you break with the sort of cronyism that's marked real world "conservatism" for more than a few decades. And you and your more principled libertarian friends become merely one more set of voices in the wilderness.

(At least I hope that when you're waxing orgiastic about free markets, you're not swaying to the beat of some no-bid defense contract that's spreading its legs in the centerfold of your magazine.

The other problem is your mental model is wrong. There's nothing they all have in common. Think of a Venn diagram; you want to pick the black spot in the middle where they all overlap and say that this is core conservatism. But that model is wrong; it's not a simple diagram in which there's one area in the middle where they all overlap. Rather, there are varying areas of partial overlap. The problem with your model is illustrated very simply with two words: Mike Huckabee. He doesn't fit your notion that conservatives have one commonality of "maximizing business profits."

Huckabee is the one exception on my list to the general rule, but you might note that the further he rose in the polls during the primaries, the more that he, like John McCain, began to backtrack from many of his former unconventional conservative positions. And the broader point is that to the extent that he strays from the COG orthodoxy, his economic views will have no chance whatsoever of having any real influence within any remotely prospective future Republican administration---about as much influence as Rev. Wright would have in an Obama presidency.

------------------------

If you feel that way, ark, then why on earth do you call yourself a conservative?

AG, my feeling is that just because the right wing has gone completely off the rails, and has tarred conservatism with a vile brush, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with conservatism itself. One recent example is Bush selling the gullible on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" (and did anyone gulled by that gem actually look at his record as governor?). It doesn't make compassionate conservatism a bad idea just because the candidate and his party used it solely as a sales pitch, in the same way that conservatism is not a bad idea just because a vile opportunist like Limbaugh asserts he himself is a conservative.

That's a perfectly legitimate answer. And here's another honest question directed to arkitektron's detractors:

The most prominent public faces of "conservatism" these days, whether you like it or not, are George Bush and Rush Limbaugh. These people call themselves conservatives, their followers think of them (and themselves) as conservatives, and they have a much bigger collective following than any of conservatism's competing brand names---even with Bush's ratings at an all-time low and Limbaugh's influence within the GOP clearly waning.

Do these people speak for you? Are George Bush and Rush Limbaugh your proud standard bearers? Are these the sort of people you really want to be "associated" with as conservatives? Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the most visible spokesmen for your philosophy so often cause you such embarrassment, and that you find yourselves running away from them?

And of course here I'm being kind. If I were to include Limbaugh's lesser imitators (Savage, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, etc.) it would be even worse. Where are the present day William F. Buckleys of conservative public life, who engage their foes with wit and charm, rather than trying to bludgeon them to death with flag pins and sound bites?

the only common thread that unites conservatives is the desire for a carte blanche for corporate business.

Andy, "corporate business" falls under the rights-of-citizens category; it's not a separate category in and of itself.

Yes, and American Tobacco and BlueCross/BlueShield are nothing but poor struggling "citizens," with interests indentical to John Doe. That works better in textbooks and in Supreme Court arguments than it does in the real world.

One of the things that upsets me most about the current economic environment is the pressure it creates for individual citizens to run ourselves like corporations. I don't want to be an entrepreneur, I want to do my job, get my salary, and pay my bills.

Andy: firstly it's ridiculous to suggest that you have to agree to the exact same system of social security to be a conservative. But if you believe in "progressive" taxation for its own sake, then you aren't a conservative.

As for it coming down to a carte blanche for corporate business... no, it (by your argument) comes down to carte blanche for EVERYONE in the economic sphere. That's what's meant by respecting people's economic rights, which is shorthand for:

People's right to be unmolested in their own property, people's right to pass on that property to their heirs without government confiscation, people's right to work without being forced to join a closed shop, people's right to contract freely, etc etc etc.

People on the left don't accept that all of these things are economic rights, so they want to regulate. OK, but that's the disagreement here.

And if conservatism "only" comes down to the way we engage in the economy (which I don't agree with), then that's still a HUGE area of our lives. What does liberalism come down to?

As for Bush and Limbaugh: I've never listened to Limbaugh, but from what I know of him I have no problem with him whatsoever. I'm certainly not embarrassed of Bush. I was a HUGE supporter of Bush in 2000, and although I think his administration has been a failure, it's basically because of incompetence (political and administrative) rather than anything else. That doesn't prove anything about the rightness or wrongness of his ideas.

Edmund Burke was pretty much the founder of conservative philosophy. As a politician he was a complete disaster, and the way he mishandled the Warren Hastings impeachment was staggering, managing to alienate even his closest supporters. But that speaks to nothing other than his own (lack of) skill, and has no bearing whatever on the rightness or wrongness of conservatism. Thomas Paine was a pretty crappy politician too. You have to take the ideas on their own merits.

As for Bush and Limbaugh: I've never listened to Limbaugh, but from what I know of him I have no problem with him whatsoever.

You mean aside from the fact he's an ignorant, uneducated blowhard?

I was a HUGE supporter of Bush in 2000, and although I think his administration has been a failure, it's basically because of incompetence (political and administrative) rather than anything else.

Neoconservatism hasn't proven itself a failure?

You've got to be kidding me.

the only common thread that unites conservatives is the desire for a carte blanche for corporate business.

Andy, "corporate business" falls under the rights-of-citizens category; it's not a separate category in and of itself.

"Corporate business" is in fact entirely artificial, a construct. People (despite the claims are my postmodern friends in academia) aren't. Corporations have all the rights, but few of the responsibilities, of people. "Corporate business" is indeed a perfectly distinct category, or idea.

Andy: firstly it's ridiculous to suggest that you have to agree to the exact same system of social security to be a conservative. But if you believe in "progressive" taxation for its own sake, then you aren't a conservative.

I wasn't saying that you have to agree to any particular sub-belief in order to be a conservative. And although of course I believe in progressive taxation, I'd never describe myself as a conservative---although in some cases I do find that I'm more in agreement with some conservatives than other conservatives are. In general, I don't find broad ideological labels very useful in real life when you're actually trying to get something accomplished.

As for it coming down to a carte blanche for corporate business... no, it (by your argument) comes down to carte blanche for EVERYONE in the economic sphere. That's what's meant by respecting people's economic rights, which is shorthand for:

People's right to be unmolested in their own property, people's right to pass on that property to their heirs without government confiscation, people's right to work without being forced to join a closed shop, people's right to contract freely, etc etc etc.

People on the left don't accept that all of these things are economic rights, so they want to regulate. OK, but that's the disagreement here.

It's this joined at the hip pairing of the interests of corporations with the interest of indidivuals here that some of us find absurd in real life. But as I've been saying, that's the one thing that most self-described conservatives seem to have in common, if not quite 100% of them. And at least its a coherent point of view with a historical grounding, unlike trying to impose "democracy" by force on countries across the ocean, on the strength of hypothetical and unproven reasons.

And if conservatism "only" comes down to the way we engage in the economy (which I don't agree with), then that's still a HUGE area of our lives. What does liberalism come down to?

I don't think that you can give a coherent definition of "liberalism" these days any more than you can give a coherent definition of "conservatism," since the two movements have both been so thoroughly corrupted. But my own version with liberalism as a historical movement would probably match up pretty well with the Americans for Democratic Action in the late 1940's, combined with the civil rights movement of the early 60's and the demographic changes of the past view decades due to relaxed immigration laws---which are pretty much what's spared us from going the way of Japan, with its negative population growth and a fast-aging citizenry. I also think that Barack Obama is the best and most realistic candidate to keep that brand of liberalism in the forefront.

As for Bush and Limbaugh: I've never listened to Limbaugh, but from what I know of him I have no problem with him whatsoever. I'm certainly not embarrassed of Bush. I was a HUGE supporter of Bush in 2000, and although I think his administration has been a failure, it's basically because of incompetence (political and administrative) rather than anything else. That doesn't prove anything about the rightness or wrongness of his ideas.

Edmund Burke was pretty much the founder of conservative philosophy. As a politician he was a complete disaster, and the way he mishandled the Warren Hastings impeachment was staggering, managing to alienate even his closest supporters. But that speaks to nothing other than his own (lack of) skill, and has no bearing whatever on the rightness or wrongness of conservatism. Thomas Paine was a pretty crappy politician too. You have to take the ideas on their own merits.

I'm more than willing to let you live in the land of Dittoheads, but I would note that Edmund Burke would have been a most unlikely supporter of George Bush's foreign adventures; and that if the noted atheist and freethinker Thomas Paine ever tried to enter the United States today, there's a reasonable chance that he never would make it through airport security.

As for Bush and Limbaugh: I've never listened to Limbaugh, but from what I know of him I have no problem with him whatsoever. I'm certainly not embarrassed of Bush. I was a HUGE supporter of Bush in 2000, and although I think his administration has been a failure, it's basically because of incompetence (political and administrative) rather than anything else. That doesn't prove anything about the rightness or wrongness of his ideas.

Attributing Bush's problems to mere incompetence just gives an easy out to whatever "Bush conservatism" is supposed to stand for. What "ideas" are even evident in the Bush philosophy, as he attempted to apply it, that could be classified as conservative? As Andrew Sullivan and other conservative writers have been arguing for some time now, Bush's approach to governance certainly bears little or no relationship to Burkean conservatism, or any other strain.

#4008
We're talking about ideas here. Why do you keep bringing up real life?

#4008
We're talking about ideas here. Why do you keep bringing up real life?

Perhaps it's because I remember the title of a book that conservatives used to cite chapter and verse: Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences.

Or as Rilke might have put it: There is no such thing as "conservatism"; only evidence of it.

Neoconservatism hasn't proven itself a failure?

It's advocates will claim the problem lay not in the ideas, but their execution or, to paraphrase Andy paraphrasing Rilke, the failure was merely a failure of evidence.

I'll have to do a little work before long and mark out the main differences between conservatism and neoconservatism

What "ideas" are even evident in the Bush philosophy, as he attempted to apply it, that could be classified as conservative?

I would like to hear this argument from a nonpartisan. After I get through your link, any suggestions?

Ah--today McCain noted that some nameless Hamas character endorsed Obama, and that this is something we should talk about.

Glad Cindy McCain's promise that there would be no mudslinging from their side lasted almost an entire day.

What about when corporate interests conflict with the rights of private citizens, Ray? I'm thinking environmental issues here.

That's not really different from private citizens - citizens have the same environmental rules, wide-ranging from restrictions on leaf burning to disposal of hazardous materials to not allowing french drains to connect to the sewage system.

That's not really different from private citizens - citizens have the same environmental rules, wide-ranging from restrictions on leaf burning to disposal of hazardous materials to not allowing french drains to connect to the sewage system.

That's not the point I'm making, Dan.

Who owns the Ohio River? Is a paper manufacturer allowed to dump his chemicals in it just because his business is considered a private entity equivalent to a citizen?

What about all the people who don't earn their livelihood from it but live along it and use it for recreation? Do they not have rights to object to it's fouling?

Who owns the air and the water, Dan? We all drink from the same reservoirs and breath from the same atmosphere. Does an individual have a right to destroy those things that are used collectively, and are considered to be public domain?

You seem to be saying yes to that.

I agree that both parties have often engaged in fearmongering and demagoguery. But where I differ is that I see the interjection of racial code words as going beyond "normal politics," since it strikes at something far more important than mere political divisions. This is far worse than Daisy ads or Swift Boating John Kerry, bad as those two campaigns were, because their consquences are far more corrosive to a social contract.

And falsely claiming that there's racial code words when there aren't is obviously just as corrosive.

Obviously this isn't to say that all racial issues should be beyond the realm of discussion, even the more marginal ones, but it's one thing to ask Michael Dukakis to explain why he paroled a violent criminal---that's a perfectly legitimate question---and another thing altogether to repeatedly run ads with mug shots of a disheveled Willie Horton along with them. Certainly you can't deny the screechingly obvious appeal to racial fears in those ads that go way beyond the question of parole policy. That's not "hardball politics"---that's stirring up racial fears for purely partisan advantage.

What's interesting is that the left often calls this "dog whistle" politics. The metaphor is telling. Dog whistles are something that only dogs can hear, so racial dog whistles are presumably supposed to be things only racists can hear. But the only people who actually hear the racism in these sorts of ads are the left.

If Willie Horton were white, would there be something wrong with showing his "disheveled mug shot"? No. So how can there be something wrong with it just because he's black? What you're really saying -- what's really offensive -- is that the large segment of the population that thinks that furloughing murderers is wrong is actually racist, that when they see a picture of a black criminal, they think "black person" rather than criminal. The fact that a picture of Willie Horton conjures up race in your mind is a problem -- but it's not the problem of those who ran the ad; it's your problem.

William F. Buckley himself questioned Bush's intellectual capacity to perform the job and you can't get more mainstream a conservative than WFB, robin.

I meant at BTF.

Well, except for arkitekton, who has mocked Buckley as not authentically conservative by the definition of conservatism where Arkitekton is a conservative. That's why I find it impossible to take him seriously -- well, that and his cowardice at throwing bombs and then running and hiding behind the ignore function. Someone who claims that Reagan and Buckley aren't conservative is not a spokesman for authentic conservatism. He's either trolling or using a definition unrelated to actual American society and politics.

You seem to be saying yes to that.

Reading too much into, methinks? I didn't say that at all, I merely said that this isn't something that differentiates between groups of people that form a corporation and individuals.

I'm a geolibertarian, remember. I don't believe in individuals owning land.

Ah, the old common good problem! An economist would suggest one of two things:

1) The mean old factory who dumps all that waste pays all the people affected some sum - say, $X - and they are happy enough with $X that they don't mind the waste.

2) The people affected pay the factory - say, $X each - to NOT dump the waste, and the factory, happy with all this money, finds some other method of disposing of their sludge, like shooting it into space or something. Of course, then the aliens might be angry.

Market theory suggests - insists - that there is some $X such that everyone will be satisfied by one of these two solutions.

EDIT - kevin, hopefully this answers your question. The difference between those who use it for a livelihood and those using it recreationally (whatever "it" is) is that one group has a higher $X.

Well, that's an abuse of Coase, Guts; that only applies in a world without transaction costs.

(3) That the government should respect the laws and the rights of its citizens - including their economic rights.

Me, too.

Yes, unless those citizens get "too rich" or they combine together into a wealthy organization. Then all of the sudden -- see, e.g., your comments in post 4002 -- you start sneering at the notion of economic rights.

I argued right here against that dreadful Connecticut public domain case.

Yes, Andy, but many liberals did not. (And you mean "eminent domain," not "public domain.") Many liberals took the position that while it's unfortunate what Suzette Kelo was going through, it was worth the price. At most, this particular instance of the use of eminent domain was wrong, but only as a specific exception to a generally good thing. The New York Times, for instance, editorialized, "The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest."

A key distinction between liberals and libertarians is that liberals think that government abuse is a function of bad people rather than bad government. The Times would be right out in front complaining about eminent domain abuse if it thought a particular project was corrupt -- but it would never acknowledge that corruption is inherent in giving the government power to seize property from some and turn it over to others, and that the only way to eliminate that corruption is to eliminate the power.

Well, that's an abuse of Coase, Guts; that only applies in a world without transaction costs.

I know, but I'm simplifying. I thought that would be best. I never had to teach Coase as a TA, thankfully; it was bad enough trying to explain the prisoner's dilemma.

The attempt to take Souter's vacation house after Kelo was inspired. Not the worst SCOTUS decision ever, but certainly a contender.

If Willie Horton were white, would there be something wrong with showing his "disheveled mug shot"? No. So how can there be something wrong with it just because he's black? What you're really saying -- what's really offensive -- is that the large segment of the population that thinks that furloughing murderers is wrong is actually racist, that when they see a picture of a black criminal, they think "black person" rather than criminal. The fact that a picture of Willie Horton conjures up race in your mind is a problem -- but it's not the problem of those who ran the ad; it's your problem.

Well, only if you don't believe in media imaging or literacy at all. How about after 9/11? Was it just a coincidence that Sikh's happened to be attacked after the events, or was there some sort of misinterpretation of media images?

There's nothing wrong with Tom Cruise playing a white samurai by itself. However, when you have 100 mainstream movies and 95+ feature a white main character--including those which take place aboard in the past in a time with no Europeans, something's amiss.

I mean, what do you all think about the casting of "21"? I had great respect for Spacey, but it all flew out the window on that one...

Yes, Andy, but many liberals did not. (And you mean "eminent domain," not "public domain.") Many liberals took the position that while it's unfortunate what Suzette Kelo was going through, it was worth the price. At most, this particular instance of the use of eminent domain was wrong, but only as a specific exception to a generally good thing. The New York Times, for instance, editorialized, "The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest."

You are confusing "neo-liberals" and "liberals". I don't know a single liberal who didn't see it for what it was--a complete vindication of cities' ability to deny people the right to build loving, stable neighborhoods in favor of corporate developing interests. It was straight up pro-gentrification, and I don't know any liberals who think that's a good thing.

Ark:

Thanks for your replies, which I've not yet read closely or in full. I do agree with DMN that I don't quite get what conservatism is when it so quickly excludes WFB from it. Put differently: who do you see as an influence on your kind of conservatism, if not Buckley? Kristol (the elder?)Kirk? Burke? Chesterton? Augustine?

Finally, I'm in a rush, but I wanted to post this: Last night I visited the finally opened, remodeled Lincoln's cottage at the Old Soldiers Home in DC (down by CUA and Bishop Carroll H.S.). The tour was really interesting - if you're at all interested in the Civil War, or Lincoln, or both, check it out.

I mean, what do you all think about the casting of "21"? I had great respect for Spacey, but it all flew out the window on that one...

What was wrong with the casting, X? Wasn't the original professor a white guy too?

I thought the movie sucked, however. I mean, it sort of tried to make outsmarting the casinos to seem like a crime, or at least an unethical thing to do. I can't think of a more ethical thing to do than to outsmart the casinos and take back the money they are stealing from credulous people.

In the actual book, the ethnic make-up of the student team was an important plot element. Part of the reasons the students were able to continue to outsmart the casinos was that the casinos gave them more latitude because they were "mild-mannered" Asian Americans.

Mezrich describes how the team used the casinos' own prejudices to their advantage. For example, Lewis and most of the other team members had Asian ancestry. When a team member was asked about his family, he usually said that he was the son of a rich Asian industrialist or doctor. The casinos, they knew, wouldn't look as closely at a young Asian male betting large sums of money as they would at a non-Asian.



When Spacey and friends got the script, they decided that they main characters would have to be white "with perhaps an Asian female".

After a great deal of community pressure, some other diversity window-dressing was added to the film, but the plot was still demolished.

Personally, I just see it as Hollywood's disdain for mainstream American's ability to be empathetic along lines of race. I have no doubt that most of the country would pay good money to see a good film with a non-white lead.

However, this is a perfect example of a good story which was dumbed down to insert a "crowd friendly" white lead, which in the end, no one wanted to see. Why not just make a good movie?

I agree that both parties have often engaged in fearmongering and demagoguery. But where I differ is that I see the interjection of racial code words as going beyond "normal politics," since it strikes at something far more important than mere political divisions. This is far worse than Daisy ads or Swift Boating John Kerry, bad as those two campaigns were, because their consquences are far more corrosive to a social contract.

And falsely claiming that there's racial code words when there aren't is obviously just as corrosive.

Ah, good old David, still defending Atwaterism nearly two decades after even Atwater himself had come to acknowledge and regret its corrosiveness.

Obviously this isn't to say that all racial issues should be beyond the realm of discussion, even the more marginal ones, but it's one thing to ask Michael Dukakis to explain why he paroled a violent criminal---that's a perfectly legitimate question---and another thing altogether to repeatedly run ads with mug shots of a disheveled Willie Horton along with them. Certainly you can't deny the screechingly obvious appeal to racial fears in those ads that go way beyond the question of parole policy. That's not "hardball politics"---that's stirring up racial fears for purely partisan advantage.

What's interesting is that the left often calls this "dog whistle" politics. The metaphor is telling. Dog whistles are something that only dogs can hear, so racial dog whistles are presumably supposed to be things only racists can hear. But the only people who actually hear the racism in these sorts of ads are the left.

Denying is not exactly equivalent to "not hearing," David.

And if you want to talk about who's hearing "dog whistles," you might try testing your own reaction to progressive taxation, where contrary to the great majority of the population, you seem to hear "socialism."

If Willie Horton were white, would there be something wrong with showing his "disheveled mug shot"? No. So how can there be something wrong with it just because he's black? What you're really saying -- what's really offensive -- is that the large segment of the population that thinks that furloughing murderers is wrong is actually racist, that when they see a picture of a black criminal, they think "black person" rather than criminal. The fact that a picture of Willie Horton conjures up race in your mind is a problem -- but it's not the problem of those who ran the ad; it's your problem.

Again, see what Atwater himself had to say about this. He knew exactly what he was doing. You are among the last people on Earth who seems not to.

(3) That the government should respect the laws and the rights of its citizens - including their economic rights.

Me, too.

Yes, unless those citizens get "too rich" or they combine together into a wealthy organization. Then all of the sudden -- see, e.g., your comments in post 4002 -- you start sneering at the notion of economic rights.

That "too rich" part must mean that I favor progressive income taxation and the estate tax, because otherwise it means nothing. In this I'm in agreement with such Huey Long types as Warren Buffett. Beyond that, I couldn't care less about personal wealth per se. Bill Gates arouses far more admiration than envy in me.

I argued right here against that dreadful Connecticut public domain case.

Yes, Andy, but many liberals did not. (And you mean "eminent domain," not "public domain.")

You got me there on both counts, the first of which I've never denied. And I was far from the only liberal to object to the court's decision in that case.

Many liberals took the position that while it's unfortunate what Suzette Kelo was going through, it was worth the price. At most, this particular instance of the use of eminent domain was wrong, but only as a specific exception to a generally good thing.

What I think is most interesting about the Kelo case was the reaction of conservatives who are not libertarians. You know, the ones who are always who are always saying that judges should be strict constructionists and shouldn't strike down laws enacted by elected officials just because they don't agree with them.

What I think is most interesting about the Kelo case was the reaction of conservatives who are not libertarians. You know, the ones who are always who are always saying that judges should be strict constructionists and shouldn't strike down laws enacted by elected officials just because they don't agree with them.

Whom in particular, Walt?

I also get a kick out of the story of the failed Texas oil guy with the powerful daddy, who got rich in part because of some shennanigans with eminent domain in the building of a stadium. Said failure went on to high elected office. Can't quite remember his name...

I mean, what do you all think about the casting of "21"? I had great respect for Spacey, but it all flew out the window on that one...

Yeah, they Hollywoodized the casting and the script, and produced a horrible movie. The true story is great by itself and didn't need to be perverted.

I do highly recommend the book, if people are looking for a quick read. It's one of my favorite books. (Into Thin Air comes to mind as another great book, as long as I'm on the books tangent.)

1) The mean old factory who dumps all that waste pays all the people affected some sum - say, $X - and they are happy enough with $X that they don't mind the waste.

2) The people affected pay the factory - say, $X each - to NOT dump the waste, and the factory, happy with all this money, finds some other method of disposing of their sludge, like shooting it into space or something. Of course, then the aliens might be angry.

Market theory suggests - insists - that there is some $X such that everyone will be satisfied by one of these two solutions.

As David points out, this ignores transaction costs, which exist every time anything happens to anyone, and exist especially any time you try to stop any wealthy and powerful person or corporation from an action they find profitable.

Further, it ignores that not everyone possesses the $X for such a transaction. If the city also desperately needs to fund its schools, they might not be able to pay the factory enough to shut down the dumping even though they want the dumping to end. Forcing a town to choose between the new edition of the science textbook and clean water is, to me, a moral nightmare. Thus, we get regulation. I find it a much more appealing situation from a moral perspective. I think this is becuase, like Alou in the post Andy cites in 4001, I am concerned not with abstract concepts of "freedom" but with the actual effects actions have on people's lives and welfare.

Whom in particular, Walt?


Hey, we're talking politics, not baseball. I don't need no stinking facts.

You are confusing "neo-liberals" and "liberals". I don't know a single liberal who didn't see it for what it was--a complete vindication of cities' ability to deny people the right to build loving, stable neighborhoods in favor of corporate developing interests. It was straight up pro-gentrification, and I don't know any liberals who think that's a good thing.

Well, I think your exposure to liberals is constrained to one subclass thereof. I don't know what a "neoliberal" is in your parlance; in my experience, it's more of a European-used term, employed to describe slightly more pro-market liberals. That certainly has nothing to do with the NYT editorial board, and has nothing whatsoever to do with eminent domain, which is classic FDR-style pro-state liberalism.

I have no doubt that on the ground, many individual liberals were appalled by Kelo, and in particular groups designed to protect minorities. But liberals who primarily view the job of government as to run the economy -- the New York TImes, the Washington Post (*), the Community Rights Counsel, other environmental and central-planning-supporting organizations, and, of course, the liberals on the Supreme Court -- supported the Kelo decision, on the grounds that government must be empowered to vitiate property rights for the common good.

Virtually all liberals may have sympathy for a woman trying to stay in her home (and many liberals -- like Arkitekton -- may have a visceral dislike of corporations), but they don't have any principled support for property rights. They were appalled, to the extent they were, only because individual elderly homeowners are sympathetic figures -- not because the notion that government should be able to redistribute property for the public good is actually a problem to them.


(*) Before the fact: "New London may have proceeded in a bullheaded fashion, and ideally voters can evict officeholders who behave that way. But New London is unquestionably a distressed city in need of economic development, and federal courts shouldn't be second-guessing the city's determination of how best to accomplish that very public goal."

After the fact: "It's hard to take satisfaction in the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of Kelo v. City of New London -- the result of which is quite unjust. Yet the court's decision was correct."

What I think is most interesting about the Kelo case was the reaction of conservatives who are not libertarians. You know, the ones who are always who are always saying that judges should be strict constructionists and shouldn't strike down laws enacted by elected officials just because they don't agree with them.

And? Unlike abortion, the "public use" criterion for takings is actually enumerated in the constitution.

Forcing a town to choose between the new edition of the science textbook and clean water is, to me, a moral nightmare.

But don't towns (and corporations, and people) have to make decisions like this all the time? Towns (and corporations and people) have a finite amount of resources, and they spend them on what they perceive to be the most important needs. It's up to the town to decide whether clean water or textbooks (or roads or whatever) is more vital to them. It's not "forcing" them to choose, any more than I'm "forced" to pick between going to the game next weekend and eating.

And? Unlike abortion, the "public use" criterion for takings is actually enumerated in the constitution.

All it says is that there has to be just compensation. Doesn't say when you can and can't do it.

But don't towns (and corporations, and people) have to make decisions like this all the time? Towns (and corporations and people) have a finite amount of resources, and they spend them on what they perceive to be the most important needs. It's up to the town to decide whether clean water or textbooks (or roads or whatever) is more vital to them. It's not "forcing" them to choose, any more than I'm "forced" to pick between going to the game next weekend and eating.

Yes. We're back to Sowell's "un/constrained vision" dichotomy.

But it's worse than you mention. The notion that the town "can't afford" to pay for X, so it needs to impose X by fiat so that it can afford other things, is nonsensical. TANSTAAFL. If the government legislates X, the cost isn't eliminated; all the government is doing is transferring the cost to someone else. When someone says that the government "can't afford" X (but that X need to be imposed anyway) what they mean is that "citizens wouldn't be willing to pay for X if they were forced to confront directly the cost of X by seeing it on their 1040, so the government needs to hide the cost."

All it says is that there has to be just compensation. Doesn't say when you can and can't do it.

Sure it does; it says "for public use." That's the when.

Sure it does; it says "for public use." That's the when.

No. It doesn't say "there shall be no taking except for ..." It just says that if there is a taking, there must be compensation. I think you must be reading the penumbra.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Final clause, Fifth Amendment.

The problem with Kelo is that it stretches "public use" to an unacceptable extreme by including economic efficiency as in the public interest.

No. It doesn't say "there shall be no taking except for ..." It just says that if there is a taking, there must be compensation. I think you must be reading the penumbra.

No; it says that if there is a taking for public use, there must be compensation. You keep ignoring those words.

I am not ignoring those words. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing in the language that would suggest that the Court, rather than the public, gets to decide what a public use is. It does not say "there shall be no taking except for public uses", which is what you are pretending it says. I wish it did say that. But it doesn't.

It does not say "there shall be no taking except for public uses", which is what you are pretending it says. I wish it did say that. But it doesn't.

Wow. And people accuse lawyers of parsing words.

But are you arguing (1) that this _was_ a taking for "public use," or (2) that it wasn't, but that's ok?

Parsing words? The way you say that you can't take something is "you can't take it." Not, "if you take it, you must pay just compensation".

I am not ignoring those words. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing in the language that would suggest that the Court, rather than the public, gets to decide what a public use is.

Nor is there anything in the first amendment that would suggest that the Court, rather than the public, gets to decide what abridges the freedom of speech. That's because the role of the judiciary is not specified in any one specific amendment, but rather is inherent in the judicial power. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether there's a public use requirement.

It does not say "there shall be no taking except for public uses", which is what you are pretending it says. I wish it did say that. But it doesn't.

Sure it does; there's no other rational way to read it. The alternative would be to read it as that takings for public use require just compensation, but takings for private use don't require any compensation at all. I think it's safe to say that it doesn't say that.

Parsing words? The way you say that you can't take something is "you can't take it." Not, "if you take it, you must pay just compensation".

But it doesn't say that. It says, "if you take it for public use, you must pay just compensation." As I said, you keep ignoring those words, and you illustrate that here by leaving those out.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

The clear interpretation of that is that private property can only be taken for public use. You want to read that as "you can't take private property for public use without compensation, but, hey, go ahead and take private property for any other use, as long as you compensate."

There would be no reason to list "public use" if government could take private property for any use as long as they compensated.

Actually, the government can take property that's not for public use - a forfeiture - without paying any compensation at all.

Walt - can you explain why the words "public use" are in that clause? I'm asking seriously. I don't see a reason to include them unless they were intended to convey a meaning. Otherwise, they'd be "surplusage," as Thomas said in his dissent. (Or, alternatively, would convey that private property can be taken for public use with compensation, or for private use without compensation.)

The clear interpretation of that is that private property can only be taken for public use.

And the Supreme Court has, in fact, read it that way. See Cole v LaGrange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885).

-- MWE

Ray - I should first make clear that my argument is not that Kelo is right or wrong, but that it's consistent with a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution. (Not my view.)I would also point out that the "mere surplusage" doctrine, while a valid rule of interpretation, is often a legal fiction.

It may be that the appearance of the words "public use" in the clause signifies that the framers assumed that property would only be taken for a public use. But the clause itself does not address in any way what is and is not a legitimate public use. If it said explicitly "no property shall be taken except for a public use" that would indicate that they were concerned in that passage with what is a public use. But it doesn't. The clause is about compensation.

You interpret the appearance of the words "public use" to mean property can only be taken for a public use, this Constitution limits what is a public use, and the Supreme Court gets to decide what those limits are. I think it's a more natural reading of the language to view it as we're not saying anything about what a legitimate public use is, but when you take property for a public use, you have to pay.

It may be that the appearance of the words "public use" in the clause signifies that the framers assumed that property would only be taken for a public use. But the clause itself does not address in any way what is and is not a legitimate public use.

And as I said, I don't see how this is an argument one way or the other as to whether there's a public use requirement. The fifth doesn't define "public use," but nor does the first amendment address what legitimate speech is, or religion. Nor does the second amendment address what arms are. Nor does the sixth amendment address what "speedy" is. Etc., etc. But surely that doesn't mean that speech, religion, the RKBA, and the right to a speedy trial are not protected.

If it said explicitly "no property shall be taken except for a public use"

...then it still would not "address in any way what is and is not a legitimate public use." So your first objection is not resolved by your proposed rephrasing of the amendment.

that would indicate that they were concerned in that passage with what is a public use. But it doesn't. The clause is about compensation.

Yes, but compensation for what? For taking private property for public use. So the question is, does this mean that taking private property for private use:

(a) does not require compensation at all;
(b) requires just compensation; or
(c) is forbidden?

I think it seems pretty clear that the only reasonable interpretation is (c). (A) would be entirely irrational. (B) would render the words "for public use" irrelevant. That leaves (c).

I think it's a more natural reading of the language to view it as we're not saying anything about what a legitimate public use is, but when you take property for a public use, you have to pay.

I don't see how that's "more natural," since that's exactly how Ray and I are reading it also.

Incidentally, you brought up "strict constructionism," but that's not really a term used with any great deal of rigor. Scalia says, for instance,

I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be -- though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.

Scalia calls himself a textualist, but I suspect that most non-legal-theorist conservatives who use the term "strict constructionism" mean pretty much the same thing, and don't mean "overly literalist."

And then of course there's originalism.

Yes, but compensation for what? For taking private property for public use. So the question is, does this mean that taking private property for private use:

David, isn't part of the problem the fact that in many cases the term "public use" has been stretched by politicians to mean "public good," which then in turn has been taken to include the sort of private development that results in "public" benefits such as the higher tax base that comes from shopping centers or high income housing developments, as opposed to the modest taxes collected from the existing owners of the property?

Long sentence, but I think you get the drift.

Of course here the problem is not only the underlying one that the state is essentially transferring property from one private party to another. That's bad enough. But then you also have the enormous opportunity this inevitably presents for the Mayor Quimbys and their ilk to get their paws into the mix.

And to be honest, it's exactly this sort of thing---which unfortunately seems to be embedded in much of human nature---that gives concrete legitimacy to a lot of what libertarians say about the inherent corruptibility of government. Now if they'd ever get past their fantasies that private (or corporate) corruption is somehow self-correcting, we might get somewhere.

BTW here's a just-in Christmas in July May present for you libertarians. Bob Barr has just announced that he's running for President as a Libertarian. I strongly encourage you all to support his candidacy.

David, isn't part of the problem the fact that in many cases the term "public use" has been stretched by politicians to mean "public good," which then in turn has been taken to include the sort of private development that results in "public" benefits such as the higher tax base that comes from shopping centers or high income housing developments, as opposed to the modest taxes collected from the existing owners of the property?

In a nutshell, yes.

In a slightly bigger shell, saying that the term has been stretched by politicians is a little off target; it's entirely true, but sort of pointless as a criticism. Expecting a politician not to try to stretch his power is like expecting Tony LaRussa not to make pitching changes. The fault lies with citizens who never punished those politicians because those politicians were careful to make sure that they only took property from politically marginal people, and with judges who didn't reign in those politicians because, well, liberals like government power.

And to be honest, it's exactly this sort of thing---which unfortunately seems to be embedded in much of human nature---that gives concrete legitimacy to a lot of what libertarians say about the inherent corruptibility of government. Now if they'd ever get past their fantasies that private (or corporate) corruption is somehow self-correcting, we might get somewhere.

A private corporation can't seize your home under color of law. If it does, it gets sued and/or prosecuted for theft. Only the government can do it and get away with it.

As for "private corruption," I'm not entirely sure what this refers to, but I will say that private malfeasance is not necessarily "self" correcting in the sense that a private corporation will recognize the error of its ways and reform; the market is self-correcting in that corporations that screw their customers lose the opportunity to do so in the future.

BTW here's a just-in Christmas in July May present for you libertarians. Bob Barr has just announced that he's running for President as a Libertarian. I strongly encourage you all to support his candidacy.

You're just saying that because you support Obama. Barr is certainly a flawed libertarian candidate -- he was no libertarian when he was in Congress, and for that matter isn't on board with the entire libertarian platform now (he's still a drug warrior, although a less zealous one than before) -- but he's the best hope of the libertarian party for some legitimate good publicity (as opposed to the kookiness of most nominees). And if the libertarian party denies McCain the election, perhaps that will send a message to Republicans.

David,

Don't have time right now for the bulk of your post, though we clearly part ways on the damage that private corporations are able to wreak on individual citizens. But I will comment on two of your points about Barr.

BTW here's a just-in Christmas in July May present for you libertarians. Bob Barr has just announced that he's running for President as a Libertarian. I strongly encourage you all to support his candidacy.

You're just saying that because you support Obama.

Well, yes.

And if the libertarian party denies McCain the election, perhaps that will send a message to Republicans.

And I hope that message is well received. I always enjoy a good catfight---if only we could put Hillary into a time machine and send her ideology (but not her charming personality) back to 1964, she'd be a much better poison egg present than a hundred Bob Barrs.

well, liberals like government power.

Naw. Like kevin said, it is all about sex for most of us.

By the way, could you all imagine if George W. Bush, John McCain, or for that matter just about any Republican had publicly made the statement, "I've now been to 57 states, only one more to go."? ROFL. The press would be talking about a gaffe like that for years. But because their savior and Boy Wonder said it, it barely merits notice.

To reintroduce one of my favorite upthread subthreads :) the NYT today has an interesting article (RR) on an amendment to the Missouri state constitution requiring people to prove citizenship when they register to vote. Unlike the voter-ID law in Indiana, which I think is mainly designed to harass people at polling places, this one is much more basic: in Missouri you'd have to prove you were a citizen in order to register. It's actually remarkable how little most states do right now in terms of such proof. You turn 18, you sign a card somewhere, and you're on the voting rolls. Auditing of those rolls for actual proof of citizenship is spotty at best. The Missouri amendment is said in the Times story to be driven by fear that illegal immigrants will vote, but I think a much likelier scenario is that legal immigrants vote in a lot of places. If you have a green card, you likely have a driver's license, and if you register to vote and nobody checks your citizenship status against federal records, you are unlikely to be challenged. (Raising the additional philosophical question of why not allow permanent residents who pay taxes to vote?)

I am actually quite a bit less rabid on this issue than on the voter-ID problem, which again seems to me largely a matter of election-day hassle, and doesn't really address citizenship at all. Basically, I have no problem with establishing your citizenship in order to vote. But what of all the people who have grown up in this supposedly free country without leaving a paper trail that links them conclusively to native birth? My own father had an insanely difficult time recently trying to get a passport, because he took his stepfather's surname seventy years ago, but was never legally adopted by his stepfather (hence his birth certificate has a completely different name to every other ID he possesses). He was born in Chicago in 1930, if my grandmother's tales were to be believed, and he has voted in every Presidential election since 1952, though under a technically assumed name. He can't definitively prove he had a right to vote in any of them. Of course, perhaps Cub fans should not be allowed to vote, on principle. And there is a venerable tradition of nonperson Cub fans voting Democratic in Chicago. But the problem of identity and the franchise is not a simple matter at all.

Ray - I should first make clear that my argument is not that Kelo is right or wrong, but that it's consistent with a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution. (Not my view.)I would also point out that the "mere surplusage" doctrine, while a valid rule of interpretation, is often a legal fiction.

Keep in mind that even the majority in Kelo did not take the view that the "public use" language was surplusage:

Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. ... As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party.

Rather, the Court accepted the public use clause, but decided to broaden "public use" to "public purpose":

Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.

Of course, in so doing, I believe the Court essentially destroyed the public use clause.

It may be that the appearance of the words "public use" in the clause signifies that the framers assumed that property would only be taken for a public use. But the clause itself does not address in any way what is and is not a legitimate public use.

Sure, but that's ok. It's nothing special.

If it said explicitly "no property shall be taken except for a public use" that would indicate that they were concerned in that passage with what is a public use. But it doesn't. The clause is about compensation.

Yes, but for public use.

The Court paid lip service to the words "public use" in its decision... and then proceeded to essentially read those words out of the clause.

I am actually quite a bit less rabid on this issue than on the voter-ID problem

Wait, I don't understand. You agree that it's significantly harder to prove citizenship than to prove ID, but yet you are less rabid on this point? Why?

(Raising the additional philosophical question of why not allow permanent residents who pay taxes to vote?)

Well, the alternative raises the question of what citizenship is. Unless you propose that permanent residency is coterminous with citizenship, there need be a distinction, and it seems like the right to participate in government is the most obvious candidate for such a distinction.

"I've now been to 57 states, only one more to go."? ROFL. The press would be talking about a gaffe like that for years. But because their savior and Boy Wonder said it, it barely merits notice.

You didn't pick up that it was a joke? Are there news outlets reporting that it was said seriously? That's all the evidence I need that the expectations ought to be raised on the media.

You didn't pick up that it was a joke? Are there news outlets reporting that it was said seriously? That's all the evidence I need that the expectations ought to be raised on the media.

I hadn't heard of this 57-states comment until now, but a quick internet search reveals that it's mainly right-wing blogs (hotair, powerline) that are commenting on it. And the LA Times blog. I don't see it showing up in a straight "news" search.

And when I read the comment just now, I also assumed Obama was joking. But the LA Times blog says
this:

(UPDATE: At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he'd also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, ""I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

Obviously Obama knows how many states there are, and just seems to have mis-spoken. But I think the point is that if Bush did this, the media would be reporting on it, whether it was a joke or not, whether he had mis-spoken or not.

By the way, could you all imagine if George W. Bush, John McCain, or for that matter just about any Republican had publicly made the statement, "I've now been to 57 states, only one more to go."? ROFL. The press would be talking about a gaffe like that for years. But because their savior and Boy Wonder said it, it barely merits notice.

Yeah, that's far worse than singing and laughing about bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

I hadn't heard of this 57-states comment until now, but a quick internet search reveals that it's mainly right-wing blogs (hotair, powerline) that are commenting on it.

I first read about it at the National Journal's Hotline, which is pretty center.

Aren't there 56 primary contests counting territories etc? Maybe he was thinking of that...

You agree that it's significantly harder to prove citizenship than to prove ID, but yet you are less rabid on this point? Why?

Because it seems to me that having to carry some additional document to prove your ID at the polls (when you've already registered, are required to sign and swear, and have a non-photo voter-registration card) is just a hassle: all it does is suppress turnout, and I agree completely with those who suggest it suppresses turnout in a perniciously partisan way.

But we all pretty much agreed upthread that you should be a citizen in order to vote. (One of the ironies of the Indiana law is that you can hold a green card and a driver's license, register to vote, bring your license to the polls, and unless the jurisdiction takes the time and effort to thoroughly audit its rolls, nobody's any the wiser. But you can be a 98-year-old nun known to all in the polling place, clutching a framed U.S. birth certificate, and if you don't have photo ID, it's so sorry, Sister.)

Establishing citizenship is a matter of burden of proof. Some might say, sign here, swear you're a citizen, and then you can vote, but come to find you lied, you go to prison.

Some might say, produce surveillance tapes documenting your emergence from the birth canal onto US soil and every moment thence, plus DNA, retinal scan, dental records, and fifth-grade report cards, or you can't even register.

I'm comfortable going a lot further in the former direction than the latter, but it's only a matter of degree. I will accept some mistakes in the interests of broad democracy, because I don't believe that there is much organized fraud in terms of people showing up at the polls. (I'm not so sure about the guts of Diebold machines.)

Obviously Obama knows how many states there are, and just seems to have mis-spoken.

Of course. It's the kind of meaningless little mistake that every politician makes when they have to campaign and speak endlessly for hours on end. The difference is that whenever its a Republican, the press loves to jump all over it and play the "look at how stupid he is" game.

57-states

All part of the master plan to admit D.C., Puerto Rico, the V.I., Guam, Quebec, Cancun, and the Bronx as new states and form a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate :)

Aren't there 56 primary contests counting territories etc? Maybe he was thinking of that...

Guam, P-R, Virgin Islands, DC, Americans abroad...

I think the simplest, and most likely, explanation is that he meant 47. He said he had one more state still to go, and that he never made it to Hawaii or Alaska.

Of course. It's the kind of meaningless little mistake that every politician makes when they have to campaign and speak endlessly for hours on end. The difference is that whenever its a Republican, the press loves to jump all over it and play the "look at how stupid he is" game.

Do you think the press is going to continuously roll out the footage of McCain saying it's common knowledge that Iran has been training Al Quaeda, needing Joementum to correct him?

Or McCain calling himself dispirited and liberal?

Obviously Obama knows how many states there are, and just seems to have mis-spoken. But I think the point is that if Bush did this, the media would be reporting on it, whether it was a joke or not, whether he had mis-spoken or not.

Well, obviously the problem is that it's an open question whether Bush knows how many states in fact there are.

And now it's being reported that Ron Paul (and his supporters) intend to make their presence (and dissension) felt at the Republican Convention. If he does, this year looks like it'll have the most interesting conventions in years.

And now it's being reported that Ron Paul (and his supporters) intend to make their presence (and dissension) felt at the Republican Convention.

What I find fascinating is how Ron Paul and his supporters are attempting to gimmick the system in a manner similar to how Rove seized control of the College Republicans many years ago...
Paul is attempting to take control of local party caucuses, to get his supporters named as convention delegates- in far far greater numbers than Paul actually won in the Primaries...

It won't work, but depending on how much damage he does, the Party may have to rethink how delegates are selected (or at least bind them to a first ballot vote) after this.

Here's my favorite user comment on that blog post about Ron Paul, with the actual number of exclamation points used:

"Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate I see signs for, bumpers stickers for, have volunteers knock on my door for. He has my vote even if I have to write him in come Nov. If ya'll don't want to die on your knees with your family's heads blown off before your eyes, I suggest you do the same!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Here's my favorite user comment

The Ron Paul devotees remind me of the the LaRouchies who used to hand out pamphlets in the subways...

But then again Ron Paul really is a real live member of Congress and Lyndon is... well I really do not know what Lyndon Larouche is...

I'm pretty sure this thread could go another 4,000+ posts describing what Lyndon LaRouche is without ever being inaccurate or flattering.

Give Lyndon LaRouche some sort of a religious handle and he'd be indistinguishable from the outer 10% of the Republican base. Of course you might be able to say the same thing about Rev. Wright and the Democratic base.

And on that equal opportunity slur of our two great parties, I'm outta here.

If ya'll don't want to die on your knees with your family's heads blown off before your eyes, I suggest you do the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

This only happens if McCain wins. If Obama wins, they will kill your family in separate rooms so that you don't have to watch each other die first.

You don't want to know what happens if Hillary wins.

Give Lyndon LaRouche some sort of a religious handle and he'd be indistinguishable from the outer 10% of the Republican base. Of course you might be able to say the same thing about Rev. Wright and the Democratic base.

Uh, LaRouche is a Democrat. I know that makes that little "equal opportunity slur" a little inconvenient, but whatever.

Is Ron Paul simply a lunatic, or is there actually some political strategy here? What is he trying to accomplish?

Is Ron Paul simply a lunatic, or is there actually some political strategy here? What is he trying to accomplish?

Partly yes, somewhat, and advance libertarianism. In that order. He's putting his views over party loyalty.

Paul has ideas? Come on. Isn't he the guy whose foreign policy is to withdraw from the UN and his economic policy is to bring back the Gold Standard? Presumably his healthcare policy is a return to prescribing leeches? His policy on the Middle East is some kind of crusade to restore the Kingdom of Jerusalem? No doubt this last is why he has thrown his lot in with the Republicans.

Besides, even if you take his views seriously, he's not exactly advancing them by trying to torpedo the Republican convention - all he'll do is annoy people. In the miniscule chance that he succeeds in getting control of the convention, that will simply ensure a Democratic landslide. If you hold views far out of the political mainstream you've got to make them acceptable to a good section of the country before you can expect progress, you can't simply throw up a Hail Mary and hijack a party. The rational explanation is that Paul is either crazy or just a publicity seeker. Or both.

Besides, even if you take his views seriously, he's not exactly advancing them by trying to torpedo the Republican convention - all he'll do is annoy people. In the miniscule chance that he succeeds in getting control of the convention, that will simply ensure a Democratic landslide. If you hold views far out of the political mainstream you've got to make them acceptable to a good section of the country before you can expect progress, you can't simply throw up a Hail Mary and hijack a party. The rational explanation is that Paul is either crazy or just a publicity seeker. Or both.

If you're masochistic enough, and have too much time on your hands, and you look at the "comments" sections that accompany many of the columns or the news articles on the websites of the WP or the NYT, you'll quickly see that lots of the more rabid Hillary supporters are rooting for her to run as an "independent" candidate if she doesn't get the nomination. And some of them have actually convinced themselves that she could win a three way race. They remind me of a late friend of mine who just before midnight on the night of the 1972 election, told me that McGovern "still had a chance."

On that note, anytime I get annoyed at Furtado for his mild version of censorship on these discussions here, I go to those comments sections. It takes me about ten seconds to realize the wisdom of Jim's ways. And these are on the websites of two of the three most allegedly prestigous papers in the country. I wonder if the same phenomenon exists on the WSJ website.

Is Ron Paul simply a lunatic, or is there actually some political strategy here? What is he trying to accomplish?

Ron Paul: Tiny little atolls of sanity in a roiling ocean of craziness.

This is different from LaRouche, who's Waterworld crazy.

Paul has ideas? Come on.

Well, yes. Indeed, you identify some of them yourself. The fact that you disapprove of them does not mean that he doesn't have them.

Isn't he the guy whose foreign policy is to withdraw from the UN

Withdrawing from the UN is part of his platform; I wouldn't say that this is his "foreign policy." His foreign policy is what most would call isolationism, though he uses the term non-interventionism.

and his economic policy is to bring back the Gold Standard?

Again, I wouldn't say that was "his economic policy," but having "hard currency" -- not limited to gold -- is in his platform, yes. He does want to eliminate the federal reserve.

Presumably his healthcare policy is a return to prescribing leeches? His policy on the Middle East is some kind of crusade to restore the Kingdom of Jerusalem? No doubt this last is why he has thrown his lot in with the Republicans.

Well, no, completely wrong on both fronts. He is, in fact, a practicing physician. His middle east policy, as described above, is non-interventionism. His health care policy, and his economic policy, is not to have one; it's not the role of government to have a "health care policy" or to run the economy. Health care is a private matter, as are economic transactions. (He does have a government fiscal policy, which is to have a very small, balanced federal budget.)

Besides, even if you take his views seriously, he's not exactly advancing them by trying to torpedo the Republican convention - all he'll do is annoy people. In the miniscule chance that he succeeds in getting control of the convention, that will simply ensure a Democratic landslide. If you hold views far out of the political mainstream you've got to make them acceptable to a good section of the country before you can expect progress, you can't simply throw up a Hail Mary and hijack a party. The rational explanation is that Paul is either crazy or just a publicity seeker. Or both.

On the contrary, sometimes the only way to advance an agenda is to "annoy people." The problem libertarians face is not that people think our ideas are kooky -- many people may think that, but that's not our immediate problem. Our immediate problem is too little exposure for our ideas. The policy debate ends up being between those who want a $400 billion farm bill and those who want a $350 billion farm bill. We need someone out there saying "$0." People may think that's crazy, but at least they'll think about it. What's the point of working to help elect Republicans whose views are little different than those of Democrats? All you do is legitimize Democratic views. (As for landslides, there was a Democratic landslide in 1964 -- but it set the stage for a Republican resurgence thereafter.)

Now, as a tactical matter, one may wish to elect statist Republicans one disagrees with in order to preserve divided government. (That's the only real reason to prefer McCain to Obama.) But there's not really any principled reason for a libertarian to do so. (To quote Radley Balko yesterday: "USA Today asked the three remaining major-party candidates how they feel about Title IX and about performance enhancing drugs. Refreshingly, all three said neither steroids nor gender participation are any of the government’s business, and that, being private entities, sports organizations should be free to set their own rules free of meddling from the federal government or grandstanding congressmen. Just kidding. All three favor using the federal government to bend pro and amateur sports to their liking.")

By Texas standards, Ron Paul is eminently sane. Here, for instance, is the Democratic candidate for Congress in TX-6.

By Texas standards, Ron Paul is eminently sane. Here, for instance, is the Democratic candidate for Congress in TX-6.

And what, exactly, makes this TX-6 candidate insane? The fact that he quotes Milton Friedman on immigration? Or just the fact that he doesn't buy into the libertarian "free market" mythology?

And BTW while some of Paul's supporters may be wackos, Paul himself is simply someone most of us just disagree with. He's no more insane than Nieporent, of whom no less reputable a figure than Hillary Clinton herself has said,

"as far as I know, he's never been hospitalized for criminal insanity."

So the thread appears to have hit the Pete Rose 86 phase of it's existence.

(I mean if Andy's link above isn't a bloop hit, I don't know what is).

Hey, man, a hit is a hit. But that was Bob's link, not mine.

By Texas standards, Ron Paul is eminently sane.

So's your mom.

Is Ron Paul simply a lunatic, or is there actually some political strategy here? What is he trying to accomplish?

Ron Paul is in the Republican party, but also massively opposed to the policies supported by those in power in the Republican party. As such, his interests do not lie in winning friends among the several dozen people who care about the internal regulation of the Republican party - they've already demonstrated that they are not interested in him, and actively opposed his campaign from the very beginning. Picking a fight with the Republican party's bureaucrats seems perfectly rational.

Channeling the Beach Boys, wouldn't it be nice if Carl Crawford faced Curt Schilling in the 9th inning of the 7th game of the ALCS in a tie game to get the juices flowing for November?

Here's an interesting private policy issue (although perhaps not particularly earth-shattering in magnitude)

My mom (64) recently recieved a "ticket" for $62 for parking in a private lot (of a safeway-centered minimall) in San Francisco, and then walking a block to a bakery.

Does a private security corporation have the right to issue fines? Is this some violation of implicit contract (I assume there were various signs and warnings posted around). This is an "open access" lot - you don't have to get validated or pay if you stay in the shopping center. In fact, the security guard told her the ticket was for "leaving the center".

This isn't enforcable, is it? I mean, if they tow your car because you are trespassing - that's seems to be clearly in their right, and you would probably have to pay for the tow, etc. But she drove off!

What could they do? Put a mark on your credit report? Send collection agencies after you?

Ron Paul is in the Republican party, but also massively opposed to the policies supported by those in power in the Republican party. As such, his interests do not lie in winning friends among the several dozen people who care about the internal regulation of the Republican party - they've already demonstrated that they are not interested in him, and actively opposed his campaign from the very beginning. Picking a fight with the Republican party's bureaucrats seems perfectly rational.

Other than ideology, Paul has a lot in common with Eugene McCarthy in 1968. One's a nominal Republican while the other was (other than Vietnam) mostly a mainstream Democrat, but both of them seemed far more interested in their own campaigns than in the good of their ostensible party. And both had lots and lots of young idealists supporting them who had little interest in whether or not they were contributing to the election of somewhat who was totally opposed to everything they stand (stood) for.

You could also compare Paul even more to Ralph Nader in 2000, though unfortunately most Republicans are far more clearheaded about throwing their votes away than many Democrats, and Paul is highly unlikely to cost McCain any electoral votes.

My mom (64) recently recieved a "ticket" for $62 for parking in a private lot (of a safeway-centered minimall) in San Francisco, and then walking a block to a bakery.

Does a private security corporation have the right to issue fines? Is this some violation of implicit contract (I assume there were various signs and warnings posted around). This is an "open access" lot - you don't have to get validated or pay if you stay in the shopping center. In fact, the security guard told her the ticket was for "leaving the center".

This isn't enforcable, is it? I mean, if they tow your car because you are trespassing - that's seems to be clearly in their right, and you would probably have to pay for the tow, etc. But she drove off!

What could they do? Put a mark on your credit report? Send collection agencies after you?

Many cities do issue tickets for parking on private property. What sort of a ticket did your Mom get?

What's the point of working to help elect Republicans whose views are little different than those of Democrats? All you do is legitimize Democratic views.

As a great example of this, McCain appears to have swallowed the global warming Kool Aid to such an extent that he's almost indistinguishable from Al Gore on the subject.

Someone needs to educate the old bastard and tell him that the warming trend came to an end and reversed itself five friggin' years ago, and that the earth just had its coldest year in decades.

Ron Paul is in the Republican party, but also massively opposed to the policies supported by those in power in the Republican party. As such, his interests do not lie in winning friends among the several dozen people who care about the internal regulation of the Republican party - they've already demonstrated that they are not interested in him, and actively opposed his campaign from the very beginning. Picking a fight with the Republican party's bureaucrats seems perfectly rational.

Granting the ideological differences, I can't see much difference between Paul and the 2000 version of Ralph Nader. The main distinction is that far fewer Republicans will likely swallow that "not a dime's worth of difference" line that Nader stole from George Wallace. Only Democrats are that dumb.

There's also a parallel to the Eugene McCarthy campaign of 1968, in that both Paul and McCarthy were insurgents within major parties, rather than an outsider like Nader. But even if Paul is more outside the mainstream of the GOP than McCarthy was (other than Vietnam) outside that of the Dems, he's apparently a lot less vain than McCarthy, and hence a lot less likely to try to throw a monkey wrench into McCain's campaign. If only that weren't the case (sigh).

Granting the ideological differences, I can't see much difference between Paul and the 2000 version of Ralph Nader. The main distinction is that far fewer Republicans will likely swallow that "not a dime's worth of difference" line that Nader stole from George Wallace. Only Democrats are that dumb.

As a great example of this, McCain appears to have swallowed the global warming Kool Aid to such an extent that he's almost indistinguishable from Al Gore on the subject.

Someone needs to educate the old bastard and tell him that the warming trend came to an end and reversed itself five friggin' years ago, and that the earth just had its coldest year in decades.

But as long as there's Joey, there's hope.