The Third Way

There is another way forward for the Republican Party

Anthony Randazzo | November 14, 2008

In the wake of Clubber Lang's vicious defeat of Philadelphia's favorite son in Rocky III, the Italian Stallion reflected back on why he lost. It seemed he had everything going for him—but then he got caught up in his own glory. When Rocky finally hit bottom, his former nemesis, Apollo Creed, dramatically stepped in to offer some stock speech wisdom: "When we fought, you had that eye of the tiger, man, the edge! And now you gotta get it back, and the way to get it back is go back to the beginning."

Today's Republicans are in similar spot. After Barack Obama's massive win, they've been reviewing the fight tapes, only to discover that getting caught up in the glow of their own power eventually led to their downfall. They should've gotten the message in 2006, but this November's spectacular defeat (save Ted "Marion Barry" Stevens) has finally woken them up. Now the question is: What direction will the Republican Party take? Will the GOP "return" to some dogma of the past? Reaganomics would appease many in the Old Party "old guard" who think like Apollo Creed. Or will the party invoke Teddy Roosevelt's progressivism and shift more to the political center? These are the two options currently being debated by pundits on all sides, but the fact is that either option would spell doom for Republicans.

Consider David Brooks' most recent column in the New York Times, where he outlines what he sees as the GOP dividing into two warring camps now that they've been thoroughly defeated. It's the Traditionalists versus the Reformers. Reagan versus Teddy. Old Party power versus moderate centrism. But in reading Brooks' analysis, one is left wondering if there isn't another direction the GOP could head in order to return to power.

Brooks defines the "Traditionalists" as those who believe "the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin." He puts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist, and organizations such as the Federalist Society and Family Research Council into this camp.

Palin, Limbaugh, and Hannity truly do belong in the same wing of the GOP, the branch that has rejected intellectualism in favor of dogma, the group that believes passionate devotion to the "real America" will energize a Nietzschian-like will to power. Unfortunately, Brooks identifies this group as the defenders of the free market. That's not a reassuring thought for those who favor both free markets and free minds.

The second group Brooks sees the GOP splintering into is the "Reformers." This group tends to believe that "American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party."

Brooks puts authors David Frum (Comeback), Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (Grand New Party), Ramesh Ponnuru, and Peggy Noonan into this group—as well as himself, proving that his neocon spine has cat-like flexibility. These Republicans believe in John McCain's mission to take the party towards the center with the rest of the country—though most were critical of his methods during the campaign.

Given the Brooks analysis, here's the real problem for the Republicans: The Traditionalist defenders of capitalism wind up out of touch with America and grounded in rhetoric rather than political principle. Meanwhile, Reformers who want to "appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters" have to abandon the small government model and become the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

None of that spells long term success for Republicans. What the GOP needs are libertarians, those who believe not only in small government, but also in individualism and the truly liberating power of free markets. If the Ron Paul movement tells us anything, it's that the Republican Party can be more than a party of old white guys with bad hair cuts.

Brooks believes that the Traditionalist will win in the short term—led in 2012 by Sarah Palin—but that Reformers will win out in the end as the GOP continues to lose. He argues that once the GOP suffers more defeats, the Reformers "will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again."

Again, it's doubtful that Brooks' vision of a reformed, moderate Republican Party will be able to differentiate itself from a lukewarm Democratic Party. But even if they were to rise to power, it wouldn't be the small government, Goldwater-style GOP of old. It would simply be a new kind of party.

What does this mean for the future of free market economics? Perhaps today's libertarians will learn first hand the pain of Hayek, Friedman, Mises, and the rest at Mont Pelerin who had to confront a world that adversely opposed their ideas.

But perhaps not.

A new conservative movement that takes libertarian ideas seriously could use the inertia created by the nation's new progressivism to slingshot itself into the future on a platform of reduced government, lower taxes, and limited interventionism, while also respecting climate change (adjusting the tax code to encourage green reform without any expense to taxpayers) and reforming the immigration system (opening the borders as the market demands labor without sacrificing security).

The Republican Party has a chance to transform itself into something it has never been: a party of small government based on classical liberal principles. It doesn't have to be one of David Brooks' visions of the GOP. In fact, if the Republican Party wants to return to power it will recognize the flaws in both approaches, avoid them like Road Runner toying with Wile E. Coyote, and embrace libertarianism instead.

Anthony Randazzo is a research associate at the Reason Foundation.

Comments

|11.14.08 @ 4:40PM|#

We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?

Sara Palin and Bobby Jindal are going to have to really go after the Obama Administration's economic principles, because let's face it any tax increase is going to leave a bad taste in many American's mouth.

shrike|11.14.08 @ 4:44PM|#

Absolutely 100% correct, Mr. Randazzo.

But don't bet any money on the libertarian option at Intrade.

24AheadDotCom|11.14.08 @ 4:47PM|#

Great job, but I would have thought that the GOP would have already considered becoming more libertarian due to the massive electorial successes of the LP. What's that you say? The LP only rarely gets more votes than the TranscendentalMeditationParty? Oh.

The real problem with the GOP goes much deeper than which ideology they're going to have. They're like someone who could make more money easier doing something legit, but who just can't stop stealing.

The best thing the GOP could do would be to decide to be clean, for real. They could fight against all the corruption associated with the Dems, and I don't just mean bags of cash. To do that, they'd need to get better thinkers than people like Brooks and the Hoover Institution's David Brady.

24AheadDotCom|11.14.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Did I mention I have a blog? Read MyBlog.

concerned observer|11.14.08 @ 4:49PM|#

Libertarians are fucking idiots.

Jimmy Maas|11.14.08 @ 4:56PM|#

What the GOP should do now?
Turn off the lights, lock the door. They had their run, and then ran off the road. They don't deserve to survive.

JBinMO|11.14.08 @ 5:04PM|#

Today Sean Hannity was talking about the fact that Obama was a far leftist but he hopped (I shit you not) "the aww and majesty of the presidency" would chang him. Majesty?

|11.14.08 @ 5:11PM|#

The Libertarian Party is not libertarianism. There are any number of Republicans and Democrats who qualify as at least "libertarian lite". Just because the LP doesn't do well doesn't mean that some level of libertarianism won't work. I think the Obama administration and Congress will make limited government a very popular concept to the GOP, and, perhaps, to others.

|11.14.08 @ 5:18PM|#

The blastocystophiles and homophobes on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war--a minority faction of a minority party--have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom and what to do with the sometime product thereof?

The Angry Optimist|11.14.08 @ 5:21PM|#

The blastocystophiles

Ah, it's always best to impart perverse fetishisms on people with whom you do not agree.

JIN, do you have a better abortion suggestion? And is it any more or less rational than others?

ChrisO|11.14.08 @ 5:25PM|#

I think the Obama administration and Congress will make limited government a very popular concept to the GOP, and, perhaps, to others.

One hopes.

Individualism is a very basic part of the American identity, and the increasingly communitarian nature of the Democrats would seemingly make a libertarian focus more of a logical focus for the Republicans. Note that I didn't say this will necessarily happen.

If economic troubles persist and deepen, I expect that the "culture war" stuff will recede. That crap is mostly pointless nonsense for people with full bellies and fat bank accounts to argue about. Republicans would do better to provide a real alternative to the Democrats on more important issues, something Bush and the neocons never did.

No one seriously expects the GOP to become entirely libertarian, but going more in that direction is probably critical to its revival.

|11.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#

Today Sean Hannity was talking about the fact that Obama was a far leftist but he hopped (I shit you not) "the aww and majesty of the presidency" would chang him. Majesty?

Sean Hannity cements his claim to the mantle of "Biggest Tool on the Airwaves".

Akston|11.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#

When one argues against liberty, what is the alternative goal? Order? Control? Power? After answering that, maybe the next question would be "by whom?" or "over whom?"

Akston|11.14.08 @ 5:36PM|#

I'd maintain that most who opt for something other than liberty have an easier time imagining themselves in the "by" group than the "over" group.

Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 5:38PM|#

"Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom and what to do with the sometime product thereof?"

Well, start with the fact that everyone on this thread - including yourself - is the "product" of the process you describe.

The products (ourselves) are kind of important, to the process leading to that product may have some significance, as well. Almost as much significance as monuments in public parks and the right of a kid to have a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 5:39PM|#

"so the process leading," etc.

|11.14.08 @ 5:39PM|#

We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?

Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but Ron Paul was battling against the Republican establishment during the primary. If they took libertarianism seriously and supported some libertarian candidates, I don't think they'd play such a marginal role anymore.

Running for office isn't just about raising money and getting votes, as Ron Paul did show. (Crazy, eh?) You need some of the establishment to support and push you. You need the media, sitting politicians to support you, voter lists, and a ton of things an internet candidacy alone doesn't provide to get successful. The Party has to make a choice.

|11.14.08 @ 5:41PM|#

Unfortunately for Republicans there were two aspects of its makeup that did them in: their theocratic paranoid base, and their libertarian economics.

|11.14.08 @ 5:45PM|#

Great job, but I would have thought that the GOP would have already considered becoming more libertarian due to the massive electorial successes of the LP. What's that you say? The LP only rarely gets more votes than the TranscendentalMeditationParty? Oh.

SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

|11.14.08 @ 5:46PM|#

Unfortunately for Republicans there were two aspects of its makeup that did them in: their theocratic paranoid base, and their libertarian economics.

What over the last eight years would you describe as libertarian economics? Specifics are always appreciated.

Hibiscus|11.14.08 @ 5:48PM|#

I think you mean their vaguely libertarian rhetoric on the subject of economics, TonyQ.

Joel|11.14.08 @ 5:51PM|#

Palin, Limbaugh, and Hannity truly do belong in the same wing of the GOP, the branch that has rejected intellectualism in favor of dogma, the group that believes passionate devotion to the "real America" will energize a Nietzschian-like will to power. Unfortunately, Brooks identifies this group as the defenders of the free market. That's not a reassuring thought for those who favor both free markets and free minds.

Dude. Get over it. That thing between you and the GOP, it's over.

The GOP piled your clothes in the front yard, dude. It changed the locks, okay? Take the hint.

If you live to be a hundred, the GOP is not ever gonna come crawling to the libertarians and asking if you can make it all better somehow.

Not ever.

Never.

Joel|11.14.08 @ 5:51PM|#

Seriously, move on.

Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 5:56PM|#

"...now is the time for the GOP to transform itself into something it has never been: a party of limited government based on explicitly libertarian principles."

In your fervid, nutjob dreams. Libertarian "principles' are about as in fashion as sideburns. The whole country is moving to the center-left and away from free-market fundamentalism. Shove you liberarian principles up your fat zealot asses.

|11.14.08 @ 5:56PM|#

Yes of course, they weren't libertarian enough. And the theocrats think they weren't conservative enough.

Geotpf|11.14.08 @ 5:58PM|#

Ben | November 14, 2008, 4:40pm | #

We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?

Thread over. The only things libertarians and Republicans have in common are support for low taxes and gun rights. That's it. Republicans don't believe in free markets-they believe in crony "capitalism". They don't believe in small government; they believe in playing Risk in real life and banning everything instead. They believe in blaming all their problems on liberals or gays or Mexicans or Muslims or gay liberal Mexican Muslims.

Seriously, why do libertarians continue to bother with the Republican Party? They hate you almost as much as they hate liberals; they just want your vote so they pretend to tolerate you-but they don't really, as the reaction to Paul during the debates shows.

|11.14.08 @ 5:59PM|#

David Brooks is a blathering imbecile.


Repeat as necessary.

Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 6:03PM|#

"Seriously, why do libertarians continue to bother with the Republican Party?"

Because libertarian are stupid beyond belief. How else can you explain Ron Paul and Bob Barr?

GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 6:07PM|#

Anyone notice the "Is Your Man Gay?? (Find Out Now!)" ad on the side of the article?

Neither here nor there.

I thought of Lefiti & LoneWacko getting skullfucked by that model. It made me happy.

Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Stick it up your ass, GILMORE. You're a fucking zit-turd on the asshole of the world!

|11.14.08 @ 6:14PM|#

David Brooks LefTitty is a blathering imbecile.


Repeat as necessary.

Jordan|11.14.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Yes of course, they weren't libertarian enough. And the theocrats think they weren't conservative enough.

Translation: I can't answer J sub D's question so I'll just move along.

T|11.14.08 @ 6:17PM|#

Yes of course, they weren't libertarian enough.

Observation would lead one to believe the party occupying the white house the past 8 years hasn't been libertarian at all. But keep insisting they were, against all available evidence.

GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 6:19PM|#

Lefiti | November 14, 2008, 6:03pm | #

Because libertarian are stupid beyond belief.

har

I think of you spending all this time repeating, "nya nya nya! you dumb! you zealot! in your asscunt!", and get mild pleasure from realizing what a total fucking waste of time your life is.

the "fundamentalist" line is my favorite. Somehow being generally in favor of smaller government and liberal trade rules, makes a person a fundamentalist these days... i suppose that makes sense from the POV of someone so deep in the weeds of some kind of fantasy world.

really, name a policy. Pick one. State what you think is a reasonable position. Discuss. I've never heard you have an opinion on anything, except a passion for poop slinging and masturbating in public

Doug|11.14.08 @ 6:23PM|#

Today Sean Hannity was talking about the fact that Obama was a far leftist but he hopped (I shit you not) "the aww and majesty of the presidency" would chang him. Majesty?

Conservative Talk Radio: Simple Answers for the Simple Minded

In your fervid, nutjob dreams. Libertarian "principles' are about as in fashion as sideburns.

Umm, the no-sideburns look went out of style about the time Reagan left office.

|11.14.08 @ 6:33PM|#

"Observation would lead one to believe the party occupying the white house the past 8 years hasn't been libertarian at all."

I know that and you know that. I also know that they weren't conservative by any important definition of the word either. The question is, were conservatives defending their principles despite what the Bush administration did the whole way through, or are they just now coming to the realization? Were libertarians railing against their economic policies all these years or were they too busy poxing both houses while the American public was realizing that, regardless of the ideological foundation, Democrats were simply much better stewards of their economy?

Indeed, the relationship between the Republican party and both libertarian economics and social conservatism was mostly one of rhetoric. But too many people bought it, and now social conservatives and libertarians are on the outs for a long time. A lot of people think Obama is a socialist (and possible terrorist) and they voted for him anyway because they'd rather have a socialist terrorist in office than another effing Republican.

|11.14.08 @ 6:38PM|#

If anyone gets past the scatology posted here, those libertarians who are interested in working within the Republican Party to change it are in the Republican Liberty Caucus ... which is doing quite well, thank you.
www.RLC.org

|11.14.08 @ 6:47PM|#

Hey, Bill, I haven't written you guys off, yet. This defeat is definitely the best chance the RLC has to make real inroads in the GOP. Even without "taking over", a little more limited government flavor would be a great improvement.

James|11.14.08 @ 6:49PM|#

All right, I'll bite.

How will we know when the labor market is "demanding" that we open the borders?

And how will opening the borders to people who are, lets face it, socialists, help the idea of libertarianism? We ARE still defining libertarianism as opposition to the growth of the state, right? I wonder sometimes.

James|11.14.08 @ 6:56PM|#

"The blastocystophiles and homophobes on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war--a minority faction of a minority party--have a stranglehold on the Republican Party."

Riiiihgt.

Meanwhile, which party just managed to get elected President a man who close ties to actual terrorists? Hint, it does not being with "R".

Akston|11.14.08 @ 6:58PM|#

For those holding out hope for the panacea of a Democrat renaissance empowered by control over at least two branches of government - I, recent Republican experience, and that Lord Acton fellow would suggest that you might well be disappointed.

Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 7:13PM|#

Were libertarians railing against their economic policies all these years

New here? If you're truly interested in the answer to that question (which is yes), the reason archives are all available, and the criticism of this administration's economic policies has been going on "all these years"

|11.14.08 @ 7:17PM|#

Maybe libertarian-minded folks should start supporting an electoral system that could keep the GOP closer to its roots.

Sam Grove|11.14.08 @ 7:18PM|#

There is no "libertarian economics".

GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 7:20PM|#

...And how will opening the borders to people who are, lets face it, socialists...

Oh, come on already.

People come here to *work*.

When you water down your definition of socialism down to "people who will vote Dem because they're less likely to get fucking deported or imprisoned", then whats the point of debate?

"Socialism" has been turned into a buzzphrase these days with no substance to it at all. It's basically a style point, asserting the speaker is somehow "free market"?? But free market... up to a point where its Free for Me but Not for Thee. Free labor markets are a net boon to a free market economy, and a sensible and simple policy of immigration reform that lowers the barriers to honest people who want to contribute to our economy is not anti American in any way, and consistent with traditional liberal economic views. I mean classical liberal, not bleeding heart unionists obviously.

Also, the claim that we're importing leftists is silly and lacking any serious awareness of how new citizens vote once they've got skin in the game. First generation immigrants may demand social services, but their children are usually among the first to demand ownership rights in our society, and are often the most vociferously patriotic and encouraging of maintaining a liberal free market system because that is the best possible system for people to advance from poverty or dependence into an improvement of quality of their lives and standards of living.

the truth is, the most liberal and leftist citizens in this country are the naive offspring of our comfy middle class boomers. College kids who have never had a job, and have limited notions about political ideas or history, and are generally the source of the starry eyed weepyness about "the poor" or "minorities", people they do not know, and have no connection with on any real level. If you want to fight creeping leftists, your battleground is the halls of "higher" education, not the border. While I am no pro-lifer, if the GOP wanted to find a bloc that would advance restrictions on abortion, immigrants are probably the most pro-"family values" group in our country. What they want is a shitty job, and a chance for their kids to have a less shitty job. Demonizing immigrants as some sort of political movement that seeks to undermine the basics of a free market system is laughable, and should be abandoned if anyone wants to be taken seriously.

Joshua Holmes|11.14.08 @ 7:21PM|#

Pundit's fallacy: The path to success is to adopt my ideas.

The GOP lost because of a spectacularly lousy president who had the misfortune to be in office in the wake of an economic crash several months before the election.

|11.14.08 @ 7:29PM|#

The GOP needs to not be a Southern-led Party. The South has a lot of good points, but let's face it, it's pretty out of step with the rest of the nation, and to the extent that the South dominates the GOP it will be seen as this strange reactionary force...

The South has and has had some real funky racial concerns that leads it to some pretty bizarre viewpoints. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina comprise a mindset that is an interesting example of the century. The 18th century.

The Bearded Hobbit|11.14.08 @ 7:29PM|#

Oh, what a fantasy land we live in here at H&R. "The world is breathlessly awaiting the return of the Libertarians to save those poor Republicans from themselves!"

Joel nailed it as far as I can see. I'd figure the chances that the R's are going to suddenly come to their senses and embrace libertarian principles is about the same as the percentage of votes that the LP drew ten days ago; what was that, about 0.4%? How many members of Congress show any libertarian leanings? I'll bet I could count them on one hand and probably wouldn't need the thumb.

The most common perception about how things are done by the government is that "the reason we failed is that we just didn't try hard enough!" If anything, the R's will go more and more off the theocratic deep end.

.. Hobbit

Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:31PM|#

GILMORE-

Hear, hear! (Here, here?)

|11.14.08 @ 7:33PM|#

The Deep South should just have its own party, if they don't want to think of new nomenclature they could just somewhat accurately call it the "Nazi-Taliban Party*" and they could get 20% of the vote every four years and we could just ignore them. Then the GOP could be a party of intellectual conservative (prudence) and libertarian (small government) and the Democrats could be the party of liberalism (John Stuard Mills) and I would have a real choice.

* Racists and fundies

shrike|11.14.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Good stuff, GILMORE.

IMO, the problem with libertarianism (my default view on everything) is that they face up to life in a democratic republic.

The vast majority of people prefer regulations for GOOD REASONS. (go back in time to see)

Food inspection
Child labor laws
FDIC
Anti-trust
Union rights
Disease control (CDC)
HazMat control
Bank regs

etc etc etc

The LP looks like fools to the average citizen for resisting these regulations.


Yeah - I know the academic crap about "market self regulation" - but that is all that it is. People will fuck anyone over to make a dime.

shrike|11.14.08 @ 7:37PM|#

CAN'T face up to democracy ,,,,

Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:40PM|#

I also agree with CED. One of the steps in this direction is to re-engage with urban areas the way Jack Kemp and Rudy Giuliani did back in the day, but has fallen off the wayside over the last decade. Stuff like small business licensing reform, eminent domain reform, and other similar stuff that is color blind and in fact most affects the upwardly mobile but at present lower income urban dweller. The kind of middle class republicanism that used to blanket the ohio and misouri river valleys.

|11.14.08 @ 7:42PM|#

Of course, there's no libertarian economics. There's just defaulting to a position of no regulation or government interference of any kind and then saying well things weren't libertarian enough when it all goes to hell.

|11.14.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Libertarian "principles' are about as in fashion as sideburns.

Not all of us are shallow or immature enough to just believe what's "fashionable."

Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:45PM|#

The vast majority of people prefer regulations for GOOD REASONS.

The vast majority of people are fine with regulations that they see in their interest and are perfectly happy as long as they're on other people. And the big stuff ain't going away. But the niche is to try to get rid of some of the micro-regulations that make it difficult to try to start out on your own. For instance the kind of stuff that was illustrated in Wire when the one guy tried to start up a youth boxing gym and was stymied until he got the corrupt state representative to intervene.

|11.14.08 @ 7:51PM|#

Naturally I agree with the gist of the article, but it's sort of predictable coming from a libertarian magazine. I'd be more heartened to hear David Brooks running around going "Hey, why doesn't the GOP get more socially liberal?"

The battle in the Republican party isn't between traditionalists and reformers, it's between people who want to get more socially moderate, and those who want to move left on economics.

I think we can both agree that it should get more socially moderate, it's just hard to convince Republicans that they need to spank their own base in order to win elections. Palin represents the tried and true formula. But there's no leader out there for the other side.

I think the Republicans can't win on a socially conservative, big government platform. That was Bush, despite rumors to the contrary. Or even a centrist Democrat-lite platform (what Brooks wants). They just don't know it yet.

I think they can win on a socially liberal, small government platform. It's just going to take a lot of hard work. It necessitates abandoning certain parts of the socially conservative base and winning over people who are currently centrist Democrats. It's going to be very difficult to convince Republicans that they need to do that.

Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#

The vast majority of people prefer regulations for GOOD REASONS.

Like making sure that the homeless don't get food poisoning from eating homecooked meals.

GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#

shrike =

I think you need to get beyond the "ism" issue, and realize that many people of all political stripes realize that our system has overextended itself horribly beyond its basic mandates and has become an encroaching problem that affects our lives negatively in wide variety of ways.

While there are many positive effects of regulation of the areas you mention, almost all have also been used for venal or stupidly political ends that drive people of "libertarianish" views to take pause and start to fight back so that these systems dont continue to become tools of a bloated political patrimony system, which frankly, almost all of the examples you offer have an element of =

e.g.

"Food inspection
- ridiculous restrictions on foreign trade justified by isolated examples of bad actors like china and the melamine scandal recently

Child labor laws
- punishing corporations for bringing jobs to foreign markets where standards are lax and jobs provide some opportunity and improvement to lives of indigent subsidence-level classes

FDIC
- .... uh. Whens the last time free marketers got their panties twisted by the FDIC

Anti-trust
- libertoids are generally supportive of anti-competitive enforcement

Union rights
- oh, come on, fuck them.

... meaning, no one except the anarchists and some weirder fringe big L libertarians are so naive to think that we should abolish the regulatory elements in federal government = most simply want to roll back the thousands of horrible unintended effects of poor implementation and exploitation of these systems by political cronies and power hungry bureaucrats

|11.14.08 @ 8:04PM|#

"Stuff like small business licensing reform, eminent domain reform, and other similar stuff that is color blind and in fact most affects the upwardly mobile but at present lower income urban dweller."

Kolohe is right (easy for me to say when he starts by saying he agrees with me, but hey, he is). GOP mayors that win in blue areas show that small government ideas can win anywhere as long as they are not wrapped in Huckabee-ism or Palin-ism. Small government can have a "cosmopolitan" face.

You don't have to take everything that the ubran GOPers adopt (I think Bloomberg's gun control stuff is stinky), but looking to them would be smart.

shrike|11.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#

Another good post, GILMORE. That is why I supported Ron Paul before I did Obama this year (but only as a Republican).

RP is pragmatic. He knew Social Security was here to stay. The "weird fringe" types you point to are yelling "Socialism" to this view. This does no good for the cause. It didn't help McCain either.

|11.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#

The South is what? Um, why don't we just round up all those nasty Southerners then?

DannyK|11.14.08 @ 8:12PM|#

Shrike, that's a good point. I've been in political discussions with a mixed group before and seen how people are genuinely interested in the libertarian viewpoint until you hit something like "No child labor laws!" or "No food inspection!"

And then shutters come down over the faces and everybody stops listening to that guy.

Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 8:14PM|#

Um, why don't we just round up all those nasty Southerners then?

They did - the south is where they put everybody. I don't know about you, but that's how I wound up living down here.

GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 8:25PM|#

har har.

the "South" represents some of the best and worst elements of this country. Pro L, you shouldnt get your fur ruffled. There's some truth to southern states being a bastion of social conservatism and semi-frequent hysterical xenophobia or racism... the dissing on the south is over 100yrs old. Much of it deserved. But most people who make generic pronunciations about "southern" issues often dont know what they're talking about in any detail.

I think the rest of the country still has a lot to learn from "the south", or at least its better nature. I think my concepts of generosity, courtesy and dignity come from my southern family. Not that there's a tremendous dearth of these things... well ok, in northern cities, there often are, but elements of southern culture are certainly widely under-appreciated.

collard greens, biscuits, whiskey and girls being my personal faves.

BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:35PM|#

"GILMORE | November 14, 2008, 7:20pm | #
"Socialism" has been turned into a buzzphrase these days with no substance to it at all."

Thank God someone finally pointed out the obvious! I hate how that phrase has been used. Pretty soon it will end up being just as meaningless as "Fascism".

|11.14.08 @ 8:36PM|#

I'm hardly a blind apologist for the South, but it's a whole lot better and a whole lot more diverse than some people appear to believe. I find it interesting that the very people who seem to generalize about and express hatred towards Southerners are otherwise obsessed by identity politics. Odd.

My family has been in the South for a very long time--way before the Civil War. And in my principal family lines, the commitment to character, education, and hard work seem to run strong.

Mmm, whiskey and food. I'm down to one Southern girl, though--my wife. She's from Virginia.

|11.14.08 @ 8:44PM|#

"people are genuinely interested in the libertarian viewpoint until you hit something like "No child labor laws!" or "No food inspection!""

Because that shit is nuts. Allowing child labor and barring government food inspections would limit more liberty than they would advance. Children cannot make contracts reasonably and so you would simply have parents willing to pimp their kids. And knowing that anybody who offers food to the public is open to public inspection, no matter how imprefect, makes people have more faith in food choices and so they do not have to fear everytime they buy food, freeing them up to do other things and worry about other concerns. Since bad food can KILL you this kind of thing is best not left to the market (where if food producer x kills dozens of people we can punish him by not buying his product; this is too late).

"but it's a whole lot better and a whole lot more diverse than some people appear to believe."

Well duh. But that doesn't mean that it is not comparitvely fucked up. I was born and lived 26 years in VA. There are many good things about the South. But politically, it's a Dark Ages type of scene.

BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:47PM|#

It isn't anymore "dark ages" than the U of Ohio or Pennsyltucky, two very northern places.

BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:49PM|#

Oh yeah, and Alaska. Yeah, thats far north and REAL enlightened. Not.

|11.14.08 @ 8:55PM|#

BDB
I mean the political culture of the Deep South is very, very different than the rest of the nation. Shit, Alaska is not close to the Talibanocracy of Georgia, Alabama, etc.

BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Worse than Utah, CED? Really?

Utah < Atlanta or Charlotte?

|11.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#

VA is not only not part of the fucked up Deep South, it's actually ahead of many states to the "north" of it.

But VA has always been way ahead of the "South."

BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#

Would you rather live in Atlanta, or Wilkes-Barre?

|11.14.08 @ 8:57PM|#

Utah is a special case.

Nutty religion out there.

|11.14.08 @ 9:00PM|#

I'd rather live in MD where I do, where we recently approved a pro-gambling referendum.

BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:02PM|#

Gambling is illegal in VA. Unless, of course, it has to do with the lottery or horses.

Even Bob Goodlatte, an anti-gambling extremist, makes exceptions for horses. No online betting on poker, but horses are a-ok!

|11.14.08 @ 9:02PM|#

Sadly "libertarian" economics can too easy be equated with opportunistic crony capitalism, and with more than a little justification. Until libertarians are will to invest some political capital, and loose a few corporate donations, by aggressively attacking the corrupt and exploitive aspects of business and corporatism, the general public is justified in their suspicion of "libertarian economics."

Hogan|11.14.08 @ 9:13PM|#

Southern man don't need CED around anyhow.

SIV|11.14.08 @ 9:31PM|#

Doesn't dissing the South get old for you guys?
Georgia had the largest LP party election vote total of all time this year:)
In the Senate race the LP candidate forced our incumbent RINO into a runoff.

There is nothing wrong with being "socially conservative" as long as you don't wish to impose your views on others by force. What socially conservative policies has Governor Palin imposed on her fellow Alaskans?

Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 10:07PM|#

MNG/CED-

The ghost of Jerimiah Dixon is asking me "which side of the line did I put Maryland?"

|11.14.08 @ 10:41PM|#

Shit, Alaska is not close to the Talibanocracy of Georgia, Alabama, etc.

You're MNG, aren't you?

|11.14.08 @ 10:48PM|#

I ask because, out of the people who comment here often, he/she/it expresses the most bigotry and hatred toward the "south," which to him appears to be some sort of trashy bucolic nightmare of incestuous orgies and the burning alive of dark-skinned people.

Never mind, I suppose, that southern people have been among the most gracious, intelligent, and kind people I've ever known in my life, I suppose. Did you watch Deliverance at a young age and ingest it whole, uncritically?

|11.14.08 @ 10:49PM|#

I'll throw in another "I suppose" because I have apparently fucking forgotten that preview is my friend.

|11.14.08 @ 10:50PM|#

Oh, and if you are MNG, do you really wonder why I refuse to take you seriously? A PhD isn't an insurance policy against being a hateful dumbass.

|11.14.08 @ 11:10PM|#

If I understand him right, Ray Kurzweil
(kurzweilAI.net) thinks the exponential application of nano to solar will solve
most energy problems within 10 years.If that
happens, carbon caps, carbon trading and all that will have been a huge waste.So much for
"green reform."

|11.14.08 @ 11:12PM|#

I don't understand what David Brooks, et al want from the Republican party. Why don't they just become Democrats?

Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 11:28PM|#

The Deep South should just have its own party, if they don't want to think of new nomenclature they could just somewhat accurately call it the 'Nazi-Taliban Party*'"

Followed by an explanatory footnote: "* Racists and fundies"

Perhaps New York could have two Corrupt Whoremongering Statist Parties. Wait . . .

DannyK|11.15.08 @ 12:18AM|#

Ramesh Ponnuru, the theo-con, just posted a link to this Reason article, with the sarcastic comment:

"That sort of Republican party would massively increase its support among voters named Anthony Randazzo, but I fear that accomplishment is unlikely to do much to help the party "return to power."

Not a good sign when your enemies respond with scorn instead of anger.

Craig|11.15.08 @ 2:51AM|#

Sounds good, except for the part about falling for the "global climate change" BS.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:38AM|#

Seth,

Until libertarians are will to invest some political capital, and loose a few corporate donations, by aggressively attacking the corrupt and exploitive aspects of business and corporatism, the general public is justified in their suspicion of "libertarian economics."

You're right, of course. But you're messing with the religion. We can't start drinking cherry kool aid *now*, it's *always* been grape or nothing.

BruceM|11.15.08 @ 4:41AM|#

As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections. Somehow, over the past 20 years the radical, irrational, faith-based christofascists have hijacked the GOP with razorblades and have steered it on a suicide course towards Washington.

Bring back the party of Barry Goldwater. Tell Pat Robertson, Jay Sekulow, and all the evangelical faith-based whackjob wingnuts to go fuck themselves. Just like Barry Goldwater did. They've destroyed the GOP, bastardized it - taken it from the party of small government to the party of spreading Christianity and enforcing Christian values upon all Americans.

As these creepy assholes masturbate to visions of little boys praying in school, gays locked up behind bars, ten commandments festooned on every wall, and women forced by law to remain pregnant to give birth to another Christian Soldier, they fail to realize that the majority of the country finds their masturbatory dreams annoying and repulsive. Now that they've proven over 8 years that they cannot govern and they are NOT the party of small government, but rather lame, do as I say theocracy, they fail to offer even the ILLUSION of those principles to even the most uninformed electorate.

Either the religion is excised from the Republican party, or the Republican party is excised from mainstream American politics.

And I say this as a former Republican. Today's GOP is unrecognizeable. Barry Goldwater must be rolling in his grave.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:42AM|#

Not a good sign when your enemies respond with scorn instead of anger.

Hey, the scorn is just a constant. The anger won't come with it until they loose an election.

Assuming the Republicans can win another election. But then, that would be assuming the Democrats don't over do it too.

If the Republicans wanted to go libertarian, they wouldn't already be where they are now.

Oh sorry, that was so obvious we shouldn't have wasted time pointing it out.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:49AM|#

As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections.

I theenk you are in for a reeeeelly beeg surprise, omeego. Because most Americans, they are believers.

If Bush had actually been what he said he was in 2000, the Republicans would have been quite happy with him. But Bush always came across as kind of wishy-washy, and he was worse than that once elected.

McCain wasn't even in the Republican ball park, he got the nomination only because the competition was worse and the media liked him.

I bet that another Reagan could still win the White House.

PS to Republicans: Palin isn't even orbiting a moon that's anywhere near the same planet that Reagan came from.

BruceM|11.15.08 @ 5:04AM|#

Ebeneezer, most Americans will check the "Christian" box asking what religion they are, and to be sure the vast majority of Americans are non-freethinking sheep infected with the virus of religion. But the democrats are Christians too, Obama says "god bless America" at the end of his speeches, also. The republican party offers nothing but jack-off material to those people who put their religion before the well-being of themselves and their country. Yes that is a sizeable chunk of the American population but not enough to win presidential elections, especially in contest with an opponent that also embraces religion.

My point is the number of people who will vote themselves into bankruptcy just to prevent gay people from getting married is significant, to be sure, but not significant enough. And the Republican party offers NOTHING else. It used to offer small gov't, lower taxes, less government intrusion in our lives, and fiscal responsibility - or at least the illusion thereof. Now it offers nothing but knuckle-dragging ape-men throwing their own feces at textbooks that teach evolution, and other such masturbation fantasies for Evangelical christofascists. That's it. And while Christianity is certainly mainstream, a political party that's only purpose is to provide jackoff material for Christians is completely and utterly fringe.

AntiFed|11.15.08 @ 5:06AM|#

Good... except for the bit about open-borders. You can't have such a policy when your neighbouring country has tens of millions of Third World people of whom 60% want to live in our land. The US would be flooded (like it alrady is) and would quickly become unrecognizable and spiral to the depths of Mexico or Venezuela. No thanks. We can have liberty without becoming part of Greater Mexico.

|11.15.08 @ 9:15AM|#

Sorry to upset you Jim Bob, but while, as I noted, the Deep South has many good aspects, it's politically a theocracy/racist area. Don't hate me because I call it as I see it, hate the Southerners that make the Southern political scene so out of step with the rest of the nation. The Southern face of the GOP is one that is a losing one for them. Did you know that there is now not one GOP congressperson fron New England?

Yes I'm MNG. I lost a bet with BDB and joe and have to post as Crow Eating Dumbass for the rest of the month.

|11.15.08 @ 9:21AM|#

In first grade I moved from Tennessee to Connecticut. I learned that northerners are taught to look down on southerners at a very young age. It must be some sort of inferiority complex, probably based on our shooting skills, or our pretty ladies. Southerners are more likely to want to be left alone, which fits them in with libertarians better than urban and northern nanny state lovers. Not all southerners are religious zealots. The GOP would be foolish to abandon the south, especially considering that we'll be taking congressional seats from the rotting north after 2010.

Some Guy|11.15.08 @ 9:23AM|#

The GOP will regain power when Obama runs the country into the ground. They'll use that power to redistribute the wealth to to their buddies on Wall Street and start a few wars. Then the Dems will be back in power. This will repeat until the country collapses.

|11.15.08 @ 9:24AM|#

"Perhaps New York could have two Corrupt Whoremongering Statist Parties."

Oh there is plenty of corruption and statism in the Deep South too my friend! As well as theocracy. I'm not excusing the problems in the Northern political scene by any means.

"There is nothing wrong with being "socially conservative" as long as you don't wish to impose your views on others by force."

Which they do in the Deep South. Regularly. Georgia was the state that locked that poor kid up, and wanted to keep him there forever, for having oral sex with a girl about his age. The South opposes drug legalization, porn and gambling with a vengance unmatched in other areas of the US (yes BDB I grant Utah can give them a run for their money, but they are a theocracy out there too)

Conservative=theocrat I'm afraid.

|11.15.08 @ 9:27AM|#

The North can be nanny state, yes (of course so can the South). But they lack the funie nonsense. But I'd rather live in Sweden than Saudia Arabia any day.

"As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections."

And where do these evangelicals dominate? What region of the nation produces them in such large, influential numbers? Hmmm...

shrike|11.15.08 @ 9:47AM|#

Very eloquent, BruceM.

What is more troubling for the GOP is that the rest of the country is letting this stark truth seep into its mass consciousness - so that it will take years of undoing to negate.

The great irony is that just four years ago - that wretched fucking hick from my home state of Georgia, (Zell Miller) was pushing his book, 'A National Party No More', pertaining to how his party had succumbed to provincialism. Of course, he unknowingly wrote it as a Republican.

|11.15.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Bruce

To his credit, McCain doesn't really give a shit one way or the other on gay marriage and Palin stated she would allow the states to decide and uphold there right to do so no matter the outcome. I saw that as a step forward from the Bush mentality.

Palin needs to keep hammering the fact that just because she believes one way doesn't mean she will thwart the law. She will please the church and the log cabin. I was done with Bush the moment he allowed Ashcroft to supersede states rights on medical marijuana and euthanasia.

I think the best we can hope for from the republicans is Ron Paul light in Sarah Palin backed up by a centrist 2nd in command.

Many republicans don't really care if gov't overall spends less, they just like the lingo, and they want money taken out of social programs, because for one they don't work, but more importantly for many republicans they are seen as a breading ground for liberals.

As Libertarians I think you have to take your power grabs where they are available which is seldom in public office. Vouchers, Medical Marijuana, deregulating the health care system, etc… are issues we can win ground on. Libertarian transformation will be won one issue at a time. The whole message is to much for the mainstream. Small bites.

shrike|11.15.08 @ 10:37AM|#

To his credit, McCain doesn't really give a shit one way or the other on gay marriage and Palin stated she would allow the states to decide and uphold there right to do so no matter the outcome. I saw that as a step forward from the Bush mentality.

You cherry-picked his positions. Many voters know what kind of reactionary dog-whistle it is to evoke the call for "originalist" judges.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:41AM|#

"Oh there is plenty of corruption and statism in the Deep South too my friend! As well as theocracy. I'm not excusing the problems in the Northern political scene by any means."

Nor was I excusing Deep South corruption. The question is whether the South is so *uniquely* evil that the GOP should openly admit to abandoning it.

So let us take your corruption examples to see how unique they are:

"Georgia was the state that locked that poor kid up, and wanted to keep him there forever, for having oral sex with a girl about his age. The South opposes drug legalization, porn and gambling with a vengance unmatched in other areas of the US (yes BDB I grant Utah can give them a run for their money, but they are a theocracy out there too)"

You may have heard of New York's Rockefeller drug laws. And, of course, when the Supreme Court heard that case about life sentences for drug crimes, that case came from . . . wait for it - Michigan. Michigan is, of course, the stoners' paradise which just legallized medical MJ, and good for them, but the life-imprisonment case was for "hard" drugs.

The oral-sex charge in GA started as a rape charge. To be sure, the sentence is shocking, but it didn't come from cops doing random "oral sex sweeps." This is about the prosecutor and the judge disliking the jury's acquittal on the rape charge, and compensating by an excessive sentence for the oral sex. An argument for respecting the right to trial by jury - and why not ask a New Yorker how much they respect the right to jury trials for Americans charged with "war crimes" in international courts, or the right to jury-trial of those accused by administrative agencies.

And haven't I heard something recently about racism in the Empire State? Ah, here it is:

"In front of a courtroom at times crowded with family members of seven teens accused in a fatal hate-crime stabbing, a Suffolk prosecutor Monday said the group was "determined" to find a victim of Hispanic descent.

"'In their own words, "Let's go find some Mexicans to ---- up,"' said Assistant District Attorney Nancy Clifford at First District Court in Central Islip."

(Of course, the defendants may all be innocent)

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:42AM|#

"porn and gambling"

Well, there was a famous prosecutor in New York who wanted to crack down on prostitution. Whatever happened to him, anyway?

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:53AM|#

No racial problems in NY, move along:

In November 1995 Hector Gonzalez was at a New York nightclub when gang members attacked and killed a man they thought had slighted them. Mr. Gonzalez helped two people hurt during the attack, and spots of their blood on his pants was characterized by prosecutors as coming from the victim. Wrongly prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for more than six years as a murderer, DNA tests of the blood proved Hector Gonzalez is a Good Samaritan and not a killer.

Oh, that was a cheap shot! As is this:

In 1992 Shih-Wei Su was convicted of attempting to murder a gang member in New York City. . . . on July 11, 2003 the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Su's habeas petition. The prosecution dismissed the attempted murder charge and Su was released after 12 years of wrongful imprisonment. (paragraph break) In February 2006 Su filed a federal civil rights lawsuit demanding $25 million in damages from the City of New York, for the prosecutor's action of "knowingly presenting perjured testimony and deceiving a jury into wrongfully convicting plaintiff of attempted murder." On October 16, 2008 Su and NYC settled the suit for $3.5 million.

Isn't it too bad these cases didn't happen in the Deep South? Wrongly-convicted defendants who just happened to be non-WASPS? these cases would have been *so* useful in demonstrating Southern racism.

|11.15.08 @ 11:04AM|#

Mad Max
Southern, Western and Northern states both have draconian drug laws, but the North and West also legalize medical mj and decriminalize mj, both of which are unthinkable in the theocratic South.

Prostitution and porn are different things, the former illegal everywhere but the latter castigated more in Southern theocratic states.

I do appreciate you didn't even try on the gambling thing, glad to know bloggers have some limits...

Somehow I doubt you're disturbed by the South's theocratic tendencies at all.

"This is about the prosecutor and the judge disliking the jury's acquittal on the rape charge, and compensating by an excessive sentence for the oral sex."

Oh bullshit, this is about the strict idiotic statute Georgia had in place that the kid was sentenced under.

"And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and -- willing or not -- could not consent legally that night.

Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life."

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/legalCenter/Story?id=1693362&page=2

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:12AM|#

"I do appreciate you didn't even try on the gambling thing, glad to know bloggers have some limits..."

You're quite right, I would lose all credibility if denied the obvious fact of the anti-gambling fever in Deep South states like Louisiana.

The Georgia "Child abuse" law was stupid and oppressive because of the excessive sentences authorized. The court could have imposed a more lenient sentence, but went for the strict sentence because of the belief that rapists should walk because of some technicality like the jury not believing they're rapists.

If only this guy had been prosecuted in the Deep South

. . . Matthew Bandy, an Arizona teenager who faced a possible sentence of 90 years in prison because of nine images on his computer that the government identified as child pornography. Police, who (naturally) seized the computer during a ridiculously excessive military-style raid, apparently obtained a warrant based on Bandy's alleged visit to a website that included child porn. But that site was not the source of the images on his computer, and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas could not prove the pictures had been deliberately downloaded (as opposed to planted by malicious software), let alone that Bandy had downloaded them. After putting the kid through hell for two years, Thomas tried to save face by charging him with a trumped-up felony that consisted of showing another boy a copy of Playboy. Bandy pleaded guilty to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. To add insult to injury, Thomas tried to force Bandy, who had admitted to nothing but looking at legal pornography, to register as a sex offender.

|11.15.08 @ 11:13AM|#

Max
Incidents of racism can be found and linked to from every area of the U.S.

But structural conditions can be very indicative. The South had slavery far longer and more extensively than any other region. The South had peonage laws in which largely black prisoners were "rented" out to companies and put on chain gangs far more extensively and longer than any other region. The South enacted felon disenfranchisement laws, many of them in direct and quite blatant response to black enfranchisement (and many targeted to offenses which had higher black offending rates), and the South currently still disenfranchises more blacks than any other region more extensively. The South currently has a disporportionate number of hate/racist groups active in comparison to other regions.

|11.15.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Max
Just as you've confused porn and prostitution you've confused porn and child porn. Every state is draconian on the latter, but the former is much more accepted in the Non-Southern states.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:16AM|#

"Somehow I doubt you're disturbed by the South's theocratic tendencies at all."

I said the South wasn't *uniquely* evil.

If you could provide a definition of theocracy, showing how the South meets it and other states don't, and how this theocracy is uniquely evil - evil in a way that non-Southern, non-theocratic state are not evil - then that might be helpful.

|11.15.08 @ 11:21AM|#

% White vote for Obama

Alabama-10
Georgia-23
South Carolina-26
Louisiana-14
Mississippi-11

Nation-43

Hmmm...Indicative of something?

|11.15.08 @ 11:25AM|#

I'll get in on this bash the south discussion. I've lived in the south (Virginia and Mississippi), the west coast (San Diego and Puget Sound), the Great Lakes (Detroit, it's inner ring 'burbs, ond Waukegan Illinois), and the East (southern Jersey). I don't know what region you would place the Maryland eastern shore in (Salisbury), but I've lived there also.

Lots of fucked up to go around there, but the Maryland eastern shore and Mississippi gulf coast are tied for #1 in my personal fuckedupedness ranking system. Nonetheless, I have some good things to say about both of them.

Make of that what you will.

|11.15.08 @ 11:25AM|#

A theocracy is where policy has a religious base, such as the religious opposition to gambling, abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drug use that is strongest in the South (I could throw in creationism as an example, but it does not impinge on liberty like these). It is evil in that it is restrictive of actions that do not violate Mills harm doctrine and are restrictions on liberty.

Would you like to argue that opposition to the above list is not strongest in the South and that said opposition does not get significant support from religious groups for religious reasons?

I argue that the South is out of step for two reasons, both of them bad: the strength of conservative Christians in that area (theocracy) and racism.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:26AM|#

"Just as you've confused porn and prostitution you've confused porn and child porn"

You seem to have confused Playboy with child porn. That's what the guy pleaded guilty to - showing a Playboy to another kid. It's for *that* he was threatened with sex-offender registration.

If Georgia did *that,* would you try to minimize it?

"The South enacted felon disenfranchisement laws, many of them in direct and quite blatant response to black enfranchisement (and many targeted to offenses which had higher black offending rates), and the South currently still disenfranchises more blacks than any other region more extensively."

Here there's a germ of truth, but not nearly enough to make the point you want. Modern felon-disenfranchisement laws - that is to say, laws taking the vote away from convicted felons of all types - were not motivated by a desire to target black people. When a state actually wanted to target black people as such, rather than target criminals as such, it was very selective, *refusing to disenfranchise all felons because so many felons were white.*

Mississippi, in 1898, distinguished between "black" crimes like petty theft and the like and singled out these criminals for disenfranchisement. At the same time, Mississippi allowed convicted rapists and murderers to vote, because rape, and murder and burglary considered "white" crimes. The state constitution was later amended to disenfranchise murderers, burglars and rapists, and a federal appeals court found that this removed the discriminatory features of the law. In other words, disenfranchising *all* felons is the very reverse of racial discrimination.

Florida has been cited for its "racist" felony disenfranchisement laws, but these laws date back to 1845, when only white males could vote. In other words, there were no black voters to disenfranchise - every single felon disenfranchised was white. Again, the federal courts threw this "racism" claim out of court.

|11.15.08 @ 11:28AM|#

Here is a map of the now unconstitutional liberty restricting sodomy laws by state. Notice a pattern?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg

|11.15.08 @ 11:32AM|#

Brother, you picked the wrong topic because I just finished reading the top book on this topic, Uggen and Manza's locked out. They found that the racial origins of the laws, especially in the South and including many current statutes, were unmistakable.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/FD_summary.htm

|11.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#

The Arizona law is bad, the Georgia one is worse. I'm claiming comparative badness here.

|11.15.08 @ 11:40AM|#

List of states that have legalized medical marijuana, notice not a Southern state in there at all:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=881

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#

"religious opposition to gambling, abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drug use that is strongest in the South . . . It is evil in that it is restrictive of actions that do not violate Mills harm doctrine and are restrictions on liberty."

I am not aware that John Stuart Mill held the position that abortion was consistent with his harm doctrine, because it injures someone other than the perpetrator.

"gambling"

Did you know that Mississippi has more legalized commercial casinos than New Jersey? As does Louisiana. Those fundamentalist, theocratic New Jerseyites! No wonder they call the place New Jesus!

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#

"drug use"

Michigan passed a law requiring life sentences for a first conviction of possessing 650 grams of cocaine. The Supreme Court upheld the law, the Southern Justice (Marshall) dissented.

|11.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#

Max
Casinos are legal in areas of all three states, that more are built and running in the two Southern States than the one northern one is not indicative of much.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:53AM|#

I read an early version of Uggen and Manza's study, which listed Florida as having come up with felony disenfranchsement during Reconstruction in order to disenfranchise black people. I contacted one of the authors to point out that Florida actually started disenfranchising felons in 1845 - when all the felons disenfranchised were white. The guy wrote back to me to basically shrug and say, sure.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#

"Casinos are legal in areas of all three states, that more are built and running in the two Southern States than the one northern one is not indicative of much."

It indicates that some states are more comfotable with legalized gambling others.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#

than others

|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Poll indicating support for whether consensual adult homosexuality illegal, notice the Southern number!

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2992007.pdf

Lefiti|11.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#

"Financial markets are inherently unstable and there are social needs that cannot be met by giving market forces free rein. Unfortunately these defects are not recognized. Instead there is a widespread belief that markets are self-correcting and a global economy can flourish without any need for a global society. It is claimed that the common interest is best served by allowing everyone to look out for his or her own interests and that attempts to protect the common interest by collective decision making distort the market mechanism. This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism.
It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable.
... it was only when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power around 1980 that market fundamentalism became the dominant ideology. It is market fundamentalism that has put financial capital into the driver's seat."
--George Soros

BDB|11.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#

CED--

Please compare the % of the white vote to the % Kerry got to be fair.

I think you will find the white vote went up for Democrats (following the nationwide trend) in all areas but Appalachia, Louisiana (Katrina diaspora), Arizona, and Alasaka.

Also, there is a huge difference between VA, NC, GA, and FL on one hand and MS, AL, TN, KY etc on the other.

BDB|11.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Don't bother arguing abortion with Mad Max. He is a Catholic fundie.

|11.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#

"It indicates that some states are more comfotable with legalized gambling others."

That's crazy. It could indicate all kinds of other things. Do you really mean that?

BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:00PM|#

I'd still like to know if CED would rather live in Atlanta or Wilkes-Barre.

|11.15.08 @ 12:02PM|#

"Also, there is a huge difference between VA, NC, GA, and FL on one hand and MS, AL, TN, KY etc on the other."

Agreed, I indicated that above by referring to the "Deep South." But GA is in the Deep South. VA, NC and FL are hardly part of the "South" anymore. Hell, VA has economic, political and social indicators comparable to New England.

"Don't bother arguing abortion with Mad Max. He is a Catholic fundie."

Yeah, that's why I said upthread that it's ironic he's arguing the South is not more theocratic since he'd probably have little problem with a little theocracy.

Max, you do realize that without the protection of seperation of church and state we could go back to those good ol' anti-Catholic laws?

BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Georgia is coastal south, not deep south. It is closer to NC than MS.

|11.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#

"Most American Catholics are aware that the spirit of New England's North American settlements was hostile to Catholicism. But few are aware of the vigor and persistence with which that spirit was cultivated throughout the entire colonial period. Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.

Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics."

BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:08PM|#

I bet the most tolerant colony for Catholics was probably Pennsylvania.

|11.15.08 @ 12:10PM|#

Louisiana against gambling, are you nuts? Casinos everywhere, not just on reservations. The horse racing business is huge down here, and they allow me to bet on the races from the comfort of my home. Until recently cock fighting was a gambling mecca. As for Mississippi, ask Naga Sadow about that. Alabama, dog racing and now slots at the tracks. Georgia is about the only deep south state that has a problem with gambling.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Here's the 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's ban on felon voting, and pointing out that such a ban was in force since 1845, when all the disenfranchised felons were white.

The article in which the authors Mazen and Uggen (with a coauthor) ignored the evidence and traced Florida's ban back to the 1868 Reconstruction constitution is this one:
Ballot Manipulation and the "Menace of Negro Domination": Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-20021
Angela Behrens, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza, American Journal of Sociology, November 2003, 559-605.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:15PM|#

It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees.

So Maryland reverted to the mean and became less tolerant of Catholics as time went on? In other words, it started becoming like other states (North and South)? What does that show - especially since you're criticizing only the Deep South?

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:18PM|#

The beef against the Catholic Church up through 1865 was that it supposedly had too comfortable a relationship with the South.

Of course, Louisiana was a Protestant theocracy which had never even *heard* of Catholics!

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:23PM|#

"Max, you do realize that without the protection of seperation of church and state we could go back to those good ol' anti-Catholic laws?"

"Separation of Church and State" was an anti-Catholic slogan invoked by the supporters of the 19th-century Blaine Amendment (no govt aid to parochial schools), and, oh, yes, also invoked by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.

Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, the leading separationist organization, was founded in the 1940s as an anti-Catholic organization, calling itself Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State.

|11.15.08 @ 12:31PM|#

In their book Manza/Uggen report statistical evidence showing disenfranchisement laws coming in "waves", one wave being in response to the increased franchise during the Age of Jacksonian Democracy and one coinciding with Reconstruction and centered in the South. Their finding did not rest on Florida's data.

"The beef against the Catholic Church up through 1865 was that it supposedly had too comfortable a relationship with the South."

What are you talking about? That's crazy. The beef originated with the freaking Reformation. Englishmen didn't shed their history when they came over. They hated Catholics when there was no South.

Protestants also were concerned that Catholics could not be democratic citizens because they were authoritarian and that the Pope was the anti-Christ (I was actually taught this in a large Southern Baptist Church as a child). They also noticed that heavily Catholic immigrant groups were growing in numbers and simple ethnocentrism took over.

What a crazy statement!

|11.15.08 @ 12:32PM|#

"It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees."

Excellent!

|11.15.08 @ 12:33PM|#

And Max, that would be the OPPOSITE of a theocracy, so the fact it's not in the south bolsters my overall point...

economist|11.15.08 @ 12:55PM|#

"It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees."

Excellent!"

Some of us here are against forcing private employers to provide specific drugs in their health plans. Even though I disagree with the Catholics' contraception obsession, I figure if a Catholic employer doesn't want to provide contraceptives, he shouldn't be forced to.

economist|11.15.08 @ 12:57PM|#

I believe in the right of people to hold their own opinions and associate (or refuse to associate) with others based on those opinions, even if I personally think they're giant douches.

economist|11.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#

"Protestants also were concerned that Catholics could not be democratic citizens because they were authoritarian and that the Pope was the anti-Christ (I was actually taught this in a large Southern Baptist Church as a child). "
So I see that you have some first-hand experience with insane fundamentalists. And while it's true that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that democracy is the only legitimate form of government (or that all democracies are legit), that in itself doesn't make them authoritarians. I think something similar in that vein, myself, although for different reasons.

Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#

"What are you talking about? That's crazy. The beef originated with the freaking Reformation."

There were a lot of beefs. The alleged coziness with the South was was one of them.

Take a look at this reply to this