Not Just for Dukakis (Or Is It Kakdukis?) Anymore!

New at Reason: Ron Bailey addresses an issue that's been bothering me for years: Every month or so I get a solicitation to join the American Civil Liberties Union, and open it up in high hopes of officially joining the fight for civil rights. The pitch letter, however, is always such a tissue of left-wing bromides that I quickly forget the organization's good works while remembering that I'm as cheap as Jack Benny. Result: My checkbook remains closed. Ron doesn't mention it in his article, but privately he tells me the ACLU is now sending out a better pitch package. So while Ron's decision to join the ACLU is commendable in its own right, I'd like to take this opportunity to note that improved direct mail campaigns really do work!

Comments

[Matt Welch]

Tim -- That pitch-letter partisanship you speak of (not to mention bizarre 1950s-baiting) closed *my* Jack Benny checkbook three years ago, as I wrote in a petulant column at the time (http://mattwelch.com/aclu.html). Also, they never sent me any of those fancy free address labels.

[Junis Chappel]

A mere change of packaging and marketing is what you've advocated and now sanction with your ACLU enrollment.

The morals and values that drive the activities of the ACLU is no different today than when you orginally rejected memebership - regardless of what the new packaging claims.

The fact that I'm registered Independant, do not "subscribe" to Left-Leaning literature and as such - have NEVER received a single solicitation to join the ACLU shows exactly WHOSE civil liberties they really care about.

Their historic selectivity in protecting civil liberties is not something that should be ignored - or supported by anyone who chooses reality over the mind-created realities of clever packaging.

[Anonymous]

Or, as Al Gore would say, "You cannot change a leopard's stripes."

[white mouse]

Oh, give them a break, guys! Bailey & Cavanaugh are simply looking for someone with clout, to fight the monster ? you know.

I don't have any clout.
Do YOU have any clout?
Hey! Anyone out there have any CLOUT! Anyone?

(If you know of some org out there that has some clout, please tell Bailey & Cavanaugh, so they can use their precious cash wisely, will ya?)

[Warren]

What about "the Institute for Justice" from the previous post? Anyone know much about them? Seem like nice folks, and appear to be accumulating clout.

As for myself, I'm seriously considering joining the ACLU. Whatever problems I have with them I'm willing to put them aside at least until we get all the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act repealed.

[Chip Smith]

Okay, Ron and Tim, you've convinced me to join. I am surprised, however, that in listing your reservations you omit mention of the ACLU's overtly statist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This has always been a major sticking point with me, and I hope more consistent thinking may soon prevail -- especially with conflicting federal caselaw forcing the issue like never before.

[Mark S.]

Personally, this is the primary reason why I think the Libertarian Party seriously needs to stop the hilariously futile attempts at trying get into public office, and reorganize itself as a political activist group. One of the primary reasons people don't take libertarianism serious is that it has hitched it's ideological wagon to a consistently losing horse; i.e. the LP. The logic is: "If they can't win an election, then their ideas can't make much sense, can they?"

Political parties live and die by votes. However, did Greenpeace dry up and blow away when Al Gore lost the last election? Did the NRA go belly up when Bush Sr. lost in 1992? (Despite his rather lack luster position on gun control, they still backed him over Clinton, the same way they'll support Dubbya despite the fact that he'll resign the assault weapon ban.)

Political organizations don't have to worry about election results to get political clout; they just need money and membership muscle. Right now the LP is squandering both at the expense of libertarianism by throwing them at every small-potato dogcatcher race that comes along. It's laughable to believe that being the town assessor of Rat's Ass Arkansas (which you can get because you're the only person running for the spot) is going to save liberty from the encroachment of government.

We libertarians don't need to join the ACLU to protect our rights. We libertarians just need to get our political house in order.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Here are a few examples of the ACLU's misspending money. (BTW, the cases at the end are similar to one on San Francisco's Mt. Davidson: a 100' cross that was sold to an Armenian group to prevent it having to be torn down. You might recall the cross from Dirty Harry.)

The Institute for Justice is at ij.org. Maybe you could write a quick article about them before it's too late to stop the check.

[Hale]

The ACLU also happens to be replete with left-wing lawyers -- consisting of formerly angry young students at Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley law schools, and who swore on their grandmother's graves that as soon as they graduated, they'd join (what?) the ACLU, of course!

Why? Well, because they thought that that would be the best place to bring about "social justice." And, naturally, Journalism School graduates of similar bent wound up at the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Globe.

So, tell me, where are all OUR angry law grads and JS grads? Where'd THEY go? I know some of 'em are hanging out at Reason; others at the IJ, and Cato, and the von Mises Institute. But why aren't they having the effect that the ACLU is having?

Is it just too soon to tell? Or do the Wheels of Liberty grind slowly but fine?

[dude]

Thinking of signing up too. I resent the fact that the ACLU often seems to act like a subsidiary of the Democratic party, which does not deserve its reputation as the civil rights party, and yet . . . I think the Patriot Act and Ashcroft and all that are driving me to it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Looking into the Institute for Justice too. Might join them first actually. Then there's the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[Pete Mitchum]

Man! The Institute for Justice is simply fabulous in what it accomplishes. You ought to check it out: http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

[from the bleachers]

TOTAL COMMENTS THUS FAR -- 14

* Pro-ACLU = 4 (incl. Bailey & Cavanaugh)
* Anti-ACLU = 8
* Neutral = 2

CONCLUSION (may be too early to reach one, but...)

"Genuine libertarians do not embrace compromise. They apparently believe that the ACLU's negatives outweigh its positives."

So what are the ACLU's NEGATIVES?

1) __________________________

2) __________________________

3) __________________________

The "compromisers" apparently believe that they can live with the ACLU's negatives, because of the following advantage.

So what is the ACLU's ADVANTAGE?

1) __________________________

[mouse]

Gwyn, could you be more specfic about Ron Bailey's "Price Controls" article? Could you give us a searchable title or keyword?

You got me very curious (and puzzled) when you wrote: "Read his 5/28 piece wherein he advocates price controls in civil litigation."

[chip]

"[Ron Bailey] also urges state legislators to involve themselves in compensation arrangements between private citizens."

Could that be because there are no viable market alternatives in place yet? Perhaps he merely seeks to have a currently pressing problem resolved by whatever means (currently) at hand. You think?

[Gwyn Thomas]

Sorry about that,should have been more clear-the piece is entitled "Ambulance Chasers Under Attack",available at the Reason website(scroll down a bit to 5/28).It's advertised as "opening arguments",though those are customarily following by a rebuttal,which I can't seem to find.

[Gwyn Thomas]

My apologies to Chip as well,whose comment above I missed at first.I don't feel that two people deciding what a service will cost requires a "viable market alternative"-that is the free market in action,IMHO.I don't get the sense that Mr. Bailey is looking for an alternative in any event,but rather a way for the lawyers on the plaintiff's side to be taken down a peg.Why he even cares I don't know,as it's not his money.

[from the bleachers]

Hey, Tim! Tim Cavanaugh! Are you reading this?!

Apparently the gauntlet has been slapped across Ron Bailey's face. He's probably not even in your office, but would you at least warn him?

This is getting to be exciting!
Folks, are you watching this duel about to begin?
Will Ron Bailey accept the challenge?

Stay tuned ...

[Anonymous]

""The enemy of my enemy is my friend.""

No . . . they are also your enemy. That you share 1 goal does not erase all that make you enemies.

History has proven - you will always have to go back destroy the enemy of your enemy - but they wil be stronger because of YOUR support.

Best not to support them in the first place.

[Junis Chapell]

Why have "pro ACLU Libs" given away so much power to them by believing the lies that the ACLU are the ONLY one capable of protecting "liberty"?

It's a joke that you'd even concede to them that they serve liberty at ALL!

The ONLY reason you'd abandon your own morals and values and side with the ACLU - even for just 1 issue - forsaking all your others - is because you're lazy.

Intellectually, politically, emotionally. You're lazy.

You don't want the burden of the fight You want to write a check to someone - ANYONE else to fight it for you - ignoring the facts that they'll eventually use the strength YOU give them to destroy you - because that's what their values and morals are.

They'll gladly take your money and support.

That's exactly why you should not give it.

[Ray Norshine]

OK, good point, Junis. let's not give the ACLU any money then. Surely they will continue this fight on their own, even without our help. After all, they're certainly big enough.

Then, while maintaining our integrity, let's seek out other institutions more in line with our own values (e.g., the Institute for Justice, etc.) and that way, this fight can be fought on various fronts. http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

What do you say to THAT, Bailey, Cavanaugh, Dude, and Bronnerkovsky?

[Emmanual Bronnerkovsky]

What are you more interested-in, fighting an immediate danger, or your own ideological purity? True, you may just be legitimately worried about having to fight the ACLU in the future over other issues, but even if they were to win, would you be better or worse off than if the government were to gain the ad lib ability to declare you a non-citizen for secret reasons...and if they were to get that far, don't you think they'll quickly get around to whatever rights you're afraid the ACLU will help to take away from you?

That is to say, if the government should get even more arbitrarily powerful: even if Bush were to stay relatively "good" on gun control, what about the next one, or the next? We've been told both that we're to expect diminution of our liberty for the duration, _and_ that the duration is long and open-ended...we've declared war on "Evil-doers", and there'll always be evil-doers....

[speedwell]

If you're a non-religious type, don't expect the Institute for (cough) Justice to come riding up on a white horse to help YOU.

[joe]

...while the ACLU has a long and distinguished/imfamous record of defending the civil liberties of those whose viewpoints they abhor - Skokie, for example.

[Greg Pecker]

When the United States was founded by colonial settlers it was there to help colonial causes.

When it was taken over by commies, it was marketed as serving the commie agenda.

Moral of the story: if enough libertarians join and actively pursue leadership positions, instead of just sending money anonymously, the United States may someday reflect the viewpoints of liberty.

[Gwyn Thomas]

My apologies(once again) for possibly misdirecting the reader-Mr. Bailey's 5/28 essay "Ambulance Chasers Under Attack" now appears in Reason's Daily Archives section.

[joe]

Most of you complaining about the ACLU seem to distressed that it doesn't take up your causes - they don't fight for lower taxes, they don't try to overturn environmental laws, etc. Well, they don't get cats out of trees or help you achieve shaplier buns and thighs either. Because you can't check off every single box on your four page checklist, you people are not just dismissing, but assailing, the most effective organization this country has ever had for defending people's free speech, free association, religious liberty and due process rights.

Sad.

Keep on flogging away at the Judean People's Front, Left Deviationists, and other imperfectly orthodox groups. You'll have Ashcroft shaking in his boots.

[omnibus bill]

Has anybody here read the PATRIOT Act? Everybody rants and raves about how they hate the act, how awful it is, how they won't be able to sleep or draw breath until it's off the books... but has anybody read it?

The lack of specific criticism of the act, other than linking it to the red-skinned, bull-horned, pitchfork-carrying, spikey-tailed Aschroft Monster, makes me suspect that most of the people carrying on authoritatively about the Act haven't a clue what's in it. FYI, before you condemn a law as eeeeeeevilllll, it helps to have read it.

And as for the ACLU, yeah, usually they are supporting wacky causes; sometimes they are on the side of the angels. But then even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If you are dying to give away your money to libertarian causes, I urge you to take a look at FIRE, a campus speech rights group that is litigating to end speech codes on college campuses, or the IFJ, which is litigating to curb eminent domain abuses, among other things. These will do a lot more good for more people than ACLU's expensive and futile suits to get the prisoners at Guantanamo trial dates in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

[cinquo]

when the aclu was founded by stalinists it was there to help commie causes

when it was taken over by liberals, it was marketed as serving the liberal agenda

but even when run by commies and pinkos, its goal was still to protect civil liberties for ALL

moral of story: it enough libertarians and conservatives join and actively pursue leadership positions (instead of just sending $$$, which is anonymous) it may someday reflect the viewpoints of these groups on civil liberties -- or at least reflect a little more of a non-partisan/centrist attitude in its viewpoint as an organization.

i am involved my local chapter, even though i want to puke everytime the discussion devolves into mindless chimpy-bashing and how all republicans are fag-hating nazis. but then they see me and the 6 new people I brought along get up to head for the door...and they tone it down.

[Russ]

I can't speak for Ron, but it seems that he supports the ACLU. For now. When he stops supporting them, his checkbook will close again, the essence of the free market. It's called changing your mind. Something tells me his checkbook will close before his mind does.

[DC]

I joined the ACLU in March even though I disagree with their stands on 2nd amendment and on freedom of association. It's important to remember principles, but it's important also to remember who can stop the gov't from violating civil liberties - AND IT AIN'T THE LP. I also support IJ.

[joe]

OK, what the hell is Kakdukis?

[BonnerJackson Aaron]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-SAFE.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 04:47:48
I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them.

[Johnsrud Karin]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://penis-size.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 12:32:04
Don't give up, you are close.