Arizona and the alternate universe
April 27, 2010
Sometimes I feel like I’ve stepped through a worm hole. I find myself disagreeing with those I normally agree with, and agreeing with those I almost always oppose. I felt this sensation especially much today during two events that I generally do on a daily basis – listening to the previous day’s Rush program and reading the various op-ed pages. Rush was defending the Arizona immigration law, while I found myself nodding when reading the latest piece by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post.
The recently passed law has caused quite a stir, to put it mildly. Conservatives have largely defended the law, saying it takes necessary and logical steps to stem the illegal immigration problem. Liberals have mostly opposed it on civil rights grounds. But in both camps, sizable portions of usual allies have dissented from the majority ranks. On the right, this is often an area I find myself as a libertarian. On many issues, largely social ones, libertarians tend to disagree with conservatives. And immigration is another subject where usual allies can find ourselves on wildly different sides.
To put my own feelings simply, I strongly opposed this law and still have many problems with it. I think it is a terrible approach to the illegal immigrant problem that gives great new power to police, encourages racial profiling, alienates Hispanics of both illegal and legal statuses, and is open to abuses most likely against otherwise harmless people. I thought I would outline a few of these ideas.
Right from the start, anyone who tells you this the new law will not be employed primarily against Hispanics is, I feel, being dishonest or naive. The fact is, when most people use the term “illegal alien,” they mean those of Mexican origin. The vast majority of the illegal immigrant problem comes from aliens of this descent. No one is talking about closing the Canadian border, after all. So to suggest that the law is not targeted against this population is silly. Of course it will be, and that’s how it is intended. The question is, do we really want to label an entire group as potential illegal aliens, when the majority are not?
In a similar way, do we really want to place the duty of enforcing immigration law in the hands of police? I am for the most part a big supporter of cops, but I don’t want to give them power they are not trained to use. How exactly do we expect your average officers to tell when someone is an illegal alien? The only possible way is to go by things like race and accent, which brings up the problem described above. Please forgive me if I find it hard to believe police will be asking for “papers” from your average white, black, or Asian person. And when the police do suspect a person of being illegal for whatever reason, how can we really expect everyone to have sufficient paperwork on hand at all times to prove legitimacy? Do we want to haul in thousands of innocent people for “looking illegal” just because they don’t have these papers?
The whole think stinks to high heaven in my view. It reeks of potential for abuse and is, to boot, a bad way to deal with the problem at hand. The likely results of this law are the apprehension and prosecution of the most harmless illegals. The big drug dealers don’t deal with police anyway, and there are already laws designed to punish and deport them. Ordinary residents who might not have the necessary documentation will be reluctant to cooperate with police, and many people will be wrongly arrested. I simply don’t buy the idea that most illegal aliens are a terrible threat. The ones who are are already covered under existing laws – if they were just enforced, this Arizona law would not be needed.
I realize this will go against many of my conservative friends. They will say that it is good that something was done to address the illegal problem. But I would remind them of Arlen Specter’s rationalization for supporting the wasteful “stimulus” package back when he was a Republican. His reason? The government had to “do something.” Just “doing something” isn’t a reason to do anything at all. You have to do the RIGHT thing, not just SOMETHING. And this law is NOT the right thing. It is a dangerous move that goes after many innocent people. When a law passes, you must ask yourself a simple question: “Does this law increase freedom and protect rights, or does it decrease freedom and limit rights?” And the answer is this case is the latter. I’d encourage all my freedom-loving friends to carefully look at this law.
Why liberals must smear the Tea Party
April 20, 2010
Those of us who are are sympathetic to the Tea Party movement often find ourselves wondering something. That is, why do our friends on the left refuse to seriously sit down and debate the issues we raise? Why do they instead insist on lying about the movement, labeling it as racist, violent, extreme, etc.? For the majority of Tea Party supporters who are relative novices to politics, this whole situation can seem a bit perplexing. They are simply stating their views and gathering with like-minded Americans, and they are being called horrible things. Even those of us who are involved in politics can often find ourselves asking why the first reaction of a liberal to the Tea Party is not to debate or examine their own policies, but to attack and slander.
The answer to this started to become clear to me while watching the Glenn Beck program today. Normally I don’t do that (I have numerous problems with Beck) but a guest he had on brought out a good point. When the civil rights movement was in full force, the images that really started to build public sympathy were the ones of peaceful protesters being repelled with dogs and firehoses. It was in seeing the faces of civil rights fighters smiling as they were attacked that it became clear who the good guys were. Through the nonviolent message of Dr. King, it became clear over time who was in the right.
While Tea Party participants are not likely to face such direct physical threats, the fact remains that they are with rare exception motivated by the same type of nonviolent ideas that the successful civil rights activists were. If America was to see the Tea Party for what it actually is, a peaceful, organic movement of concerned citizens, they would have sympathy and the opposition to the statists would grow. But, if the left can paint the Tea Party as a bunch of racist, violent loons, uninvolved people will look on it with suspicion and disdain. Thus, it is in the interest of liberals both in power and in the media to mock and ridicule the Tea Party. They need to minimize its influence, attack its motives, and portray it as extreme and dangerous.
The good news about this is, as anyone who has actually been a part of the movement can attest, we’re not racist, violent, or crazy. Sure, there are some more radical elements, but they are only radical compared to the statist dreck we’re fed in the media and school. In the American tradition the Tea Party movement is much closer to the Founders, while the modern “progressive” movement is closer to outright socialism, or worse. It is important, and key, that the Tea Party continue to move forward, pushing aside those who would throw a wrench in its gears. As we become more established and well-known, the gutless, truthless attacks will be weakened. And the attackers will be revealed to be wearing no clothes. Leftist ideas are tired, wrong, and damaging. They will fall under sustained assault. It is up to us then to go forward, keeping our faith in God and the Constitution.
My first tea party
April 15, 2010
Today I had the chance to attend my first tea party. In the past, the events have been during the day or far away, and let’s face it – it is very hard to go to something like that when it’s just you. This one, though, was both after work and right in my town, so I figured I did not have an excuse to not at least check it out.
My first impression was similar to the one I got from previous similar events I went to – the vast majority of people there are older adults. There is the occasional family as well, but by and large I am essentially the only person like me there. That is, the only young single person. Now, this is not a surprise – the polls show that this is the makeup of the tea party. But at least at first, I found myself feeling out of place. People look strangely at you, almost like they think you’re an interloper. I think the movement as a whole needs an influx of younger people, or to at least do a better job of being more welcoming to them. I don’t know how, but that’s the first thought I had.
After that, though, I talked to a few people and learned a little about why they were at the party. I’ve never heard so many “normal” people talk about the Constitution and liberty. Countless cars honked and waved as they drove by the people on the streets. I saw so many flags and good signs – not a single inappropriate one there. When a woman sang the national anthem, there were flags waving and people standing solemnly. It was pretty awesome, and made me feel some real pride in my country.
I also met and heard from Patrick Henry Sellers, a libertarian running against Rep. Jim Gerlach in my district, PA-6. I talked to him briefly and he described himself as a “Ron Paul Republican,” which basically told me where he was coming from without any further words. If there is anything you can know about such a person, they will be obsessed with auditing the Fed and non-interventionist foreign policy. And really, without that last issue, I’d be largely on board. I still don’t know who I will support in the primary, but I think I may throw my vote to Mr. Sellers as we need more libertarians in Congress. He promised to never vote for an unbalanced budget, for instance.
Overall, I enjoyed my visit with the tea party and I got some info about my local tea party group, the Valley Forge Patriots. I am looking forward to voting in my first primary and supporting Sam Rohrer for governor, Pat Toomey for Senate, and whomever I land on for PA-6. I think the movement is still going strong – there were probably between 100-150 people in my little town. I’m glad I stopped by and got to feel a little of the energy and passion that has animated the movement. It’s a cool time to be a patriotic American.
Why I call myself a libertarian
April 9, 2010
Since it has been on, I’ve been meaning to check out John Stossel’s new show on FBN. Last night, I finally had the chance to, and I liked what I saw. On this particular episode, Stossel had on numerous libertarian thinkers to discuss the various positions and views they have on different subjects. I found the dialog to be interesting and informative and, if you have the chance, I think you should check it out. It served as a good primer on libertarian thought.
The whole thing got me thinking about how and why I started calling myself a libertarian. It has been a fairly recent development, probably in the last couple years. Previously I would’ve preferred the label conservative, which I still use sometimes and which does not generally cause a problem. But as my own views began to change, especially my views on social issues like drugs, gay marriage, and prostitution, I began to realize that my ideas were more in step with libertarian thinking. I’ve always been a strong capitalist and a huge fan of free markets, but as time went on I began to see that more freedom made sense both in economic matters and personal ones. I was still put off by some elements of common libertarian thought, particularly the views on use of the military and abortion.
What I have found, though, is a fact that was really hammered home on last night’s program. Libertarians actually have a wide variety of positions on these two subjects. There is a sizable contingent of pro-life libertarians, and there are also some who view the use of military force as sometimes acceptable. I found my views very similar to those espoused by Deroy Murdock – pro-life and in favor of force in some cases. I found the views of others on the panel to be wrong but still respectable. I was most impressed by David Boaz’s statement that even when libertarians disagree on things like abortion, we can generally respect the other side – much alien to those on the traditional right or left.
So when it comes down to it, my strong advocacy for very limited government, maximum personal and economic freedom, and a restrained but strong foreign policy fall very much in line with libertarian thought. I feel like my views fit in fine with a large number of libertarians, even if the majority are pro-choice or against military force. Quite simply, I feel like libertarian ideas are some of the most fascinating, powerful, and necessary ones in our time. They are often mocked but are crucial if we are to fix this country. I think many “social conservatives” need to realize that things like gay marriage are not that important if we don’t have a free country to live in. I would encourage anyone who calls themselves a conservative to look closely at libertarian ideas and ask themselves if they, too, in fact agree more with these ideas then they might have thought.
The right side of history?
April 1, 2010
In yet another reminder of why conservatives should be happy we don’t have most celebrities on our side, the other day no less a luminary than Barbra Streisand penned a piece in the HuffPo, essentially charging the Republican Party of being on the wrong side of history. In language that could have been mustered by a fourth-grader, Barbra makes the case that the mean ol’ Republicans are standing in the way of “progress,” an intentionally inchoate term that is generally a stand-in for progressive policies. Get it? They’re for “progress,” so by opposing them we’re against that.
The vapidity continues as she claims Republicans are against “bettering the lives of the American people.” Streisand’s case basically comes down to this – by being on the “wrong side” of health care, global warming, financial regulation, etc., Republicans are ensuring they will go down in history as being against all of these wonderful things. She thinks these positions will cause the GOP to lose elections as voters realize that Democrats are the sole purveyors of Good and Light and thus represent the very definition of “moving forward.” This is a common theme among liberals in general – that only their ideas are even valid as they alone hold the key to progress.
Now, by itself this column is just standard liberal silliness. It is by no means well-written, thought-provoking, or worth reading. However, I think Barbra unintentionally raised an interesting question – who will be on the right side of history? Will it be the Leftists who endeavor to expand the role of government, or the Tea Party Right who wish to limit it? Will it be those who think freedom is something dangerous that must be controlled, or something powerful and wonderful that must be protected? In short, as Michael Barone notes in this piece at NRO, will it be the Progressives or will it be the Founders?
I find it interesting that liberals are so certain they will come out on the right side. Historically speaking, those who have been in favor of giant government have one thing in common – they tend to produce oppressive societies that are really horrible to live in. The very best they can hope to achieve is the moribund stagnancy of Europe. But even in those societies, there still remain vestiges of freedom, and it is by those that they survive at all. The true realization of the dreams of progressives is in societies like Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, and Venezuela, none of which are especially brilliant beacons of liberty and prosperity.
I also find it intriguing that liberals think they are on the right side with regard to attacking dissent. People like Frank Rich seem to think that the winning strategy is to slander political opponents and try to vilify honest activism. In their mind, I suppose, the goal is to so terrify people to speak ill of their goals that people won’t even try. They seem to desire a slavish society where we all are drones following our Leftist leaders into the future. That is the only conclusion one can reach by reading the numerous attempts to link decent, hardworking people protesting against government spending to terrorism and violence. The goal is to scare us into shutting up.
It is my conclusion, then, that those who love freedom have a much better chance to end up on the “right side” of history. In contrast, the leftists are the people who want to arrest those who disagree. They wish to impose all sorts of taxes and laws on us and don’t care the slightest if we wish them. The patriots of today stand on the side of the patriots of then. By standing up for limited government, we are sticking to the principles of the great men who founded this country. And we all know how that whole situation turned out.
