Published: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0400
Last Build Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:04:23 -0400
Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:50:00 -0400
(image) The threats of gun violence, police abuse, and a rollback of reproductive-liberty loomed at Rock the Vote's "pop-up art exhibition" during the Democratic National Convention (DNC). The exhibit, "Truth to Power," featured work from Shephard Fairey and dozens of other artists from a 9,000 square-foot space on the edge of downtown Philadelphia. Folks like Danny Glover, Rosie Perez, Sen. Cory Booker and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes dropped by for panels, which included sessions on robots, universal basic income, and the militarization of police.
I liked the exhibit, even if I didn't agree the messages explicit in some of the works. Some pieces were silly, but some were powerful. None were even slightly critical of Hillary or Bill Clinton, however, nor of the Democratic party—something I didn't think about until I passed a guerrilla art exhibit/protest on the sidewalk near City Hall. It featured paper-mache drones and pictures of children killed by U.S. drone strikes, along with a sign that said "Hillary knows drones kill children, she's all for it." I passed the exhibit on the way to the official DNC "Women's Caucus," where Clinton's record as a champion of children's rights and well-being was touted once again.
Rock the Vote says the Truth to Power campaign was designed "to engage and mobilize young people in the 2016 election." The works featured at the pop-up exhibition—which was partnered with criminal-justice reform groups like #Cut50, reproductive-health groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and tech startups with names like "Ideapod" and "Wikiburg"— reflected themes that Democrats have hit hard on this week at their convention: gun violence and the need for gun-control regulations; violence at the hands of police; violence against women; the importance of safeguarding reproductive rights; criminal justice reform; women's progress; and how race intersects with all of these things. Check out some of the Truth to Power pieces and some of the Philly street art below.
Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:05:00 -0400If you've been part of the broad-based libertarian movement for more than a few years, you know that it is growing in popularity, visibility, and influence throughout American politics, culture, and ideas. Once a smallish movement tightly identified with the likes of Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, and Milton Friedman, rarely a day goes by now where some new writer, thinker, pundit, artist, or celebrity doesn't come out as libertarian (among the most recent: Jane's Addiction guitarist and TV host Dave Navarro and Republican political consultant Mary Matalin). "Libertarianish" politicians such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are blazing a different path in the Republican Party and Rand's father Ron electrified college campuses during his runs for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012. Two years ago, The New York Times Magazine asked, "Has the 'Libertarian Moment' Finally Arrived?" and in the 2016 election cycle the Libertarian Party presidential ticket of former governors Gary Johnson and William Weld has already probably received more press than all previous tickets did put together. So libertarianism as a political and cultural force is on the rise. With that in mind, Reason.com is happy to host a debate over "virtue libertarianism." William Ruger, a former college professor and Afghanistan war vet who is now vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, and Jason Sorens, a lecturer in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College and the originator of idea behind the Free State Project, argue that libertarianism—"the political philosophy of free markets, property rights, toleration, and peace"—will grow even faster if its champions embrace "a duty to respect our own moral nature and to promote its development in others." In short, they reject what they call "libertine libertarianism," or a willingness to treat all lifestyle choices as essentially morally equivalent. Conservatives and progressives, they say, worry that a libertarian world in which the goverment is reduced to its simple "night watchman" functions will likely result in anarchy or a world in which the poor and defenseless are constantly degraded. Virtue libertarianism assuages these fears, they hold, by providing moral direction that will improve people's outcome and material support for those who can't help themselves. It's not just the right of libertarians to endorse and uphold particular ways of living, they say, it's the duty of libertarians to do so, as long as the state's coercive apparatus is not involved. This is a provocative thesis, to say the least, and Ruger and Sorens are answered by Steven Horwitz, a self-identified "bleeding-heart libertarian" and a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University; Deirdre McCloskey, who teaches economics, literature and communications at University of Illinois at Chicago and is the author of the new Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World; and Katherine Mangu-Ward, the managing editor of Reason magazine. Comments can be added below. Send email responses to email@example.com.—Nick Gillespie, Reason.com. The Case for 'Virtue Libertarianism' Over Libertinism William Ruger and Jason Sorens Over the past several decades, libertarianism—the political philosophy of free markets, property rights, toleration, and peace—has gone mainstream. The libertarian perspective on a wide range of policy issues—including growing support for educational choice, Second Amendment rights, marijuana legalization, and criminal justice reform—has not only become respectable but the one held by a majority of Americans. Liberating technologies at the heart of the "sharing economy" and new forms of money such as Bitcoin are also widely hailed (and demonized!) as libertarian. While the presidential ambitions of the "libertarianish" Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were thwarted (at least in this election cycle) and people within and without the movement debate whether what Reason and The New York Times called "The L[...]
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:29:00 -0400What is a "cultural libertarian?" While young conservatives claim the term originated in a 2015 Breitbart article, it's actually a term that's been thrown around by libertarians and conservatives in the media since at least 2001. But does the "cultural libertarianism" debated in outlets such as Reason and the National Review back then share anything with the version espoused by the likes of Canadian activist Lauren Southern and Breitbart personality Milo Yiannopoulos these days? Yes and no. Today's "cultural libertarians" claim to be concerned, first and foremost, with free speech and fending off the "illiberal" or "regressive left." Where they succeed, from a libertarian-no-qualifier perspective, is in igniting the passions of young people toward the protection of civil liberties. Where they fail is by turning off more people in the process than they win over, delighting in the kinds of tactics and stunts that provoke but little else. Going to a feminist rally and holding up signs saying "there is no rape culture" may seem edgy when you're 20, but most people realize that intruding on private events just to throw shade simply makes you an asshole, not a radical for free expression. @enbrown Wasn't that a failed pre-altright branding attempt? — Chris Morgan (@CR_Morgan) April 19, 2016 Kevin Glass, policy director for the Franklin Center, calls the cultural libertarianism of today "warmed over 90s-style anti-politcal correctness in a new suit." Former Reason staffer Julian Sanchez, now at the Cato Institute, opined yesterday that "cultural libertarian is either redundant or just a dodgy way of saying 'I don't wanna talk about racism or sexism.'" If so-called cultural libertarians are just people who don't want censorship in the name of social justice, we already "have a perfectly good word for" that, noted Sanchez: civil libertarians. Similar sentiment comes from writer Garry Reed, who explored cultural libertarianisn this week at Examiner.com. Because classical liberalism is a philosophy that covers economic, political, and social realms, being a libertarian means "you're a philosophical libertarian, political libertarian, cultural libertarian, social libertarian, economic libertarian and libertarian in every other way possible," he writes. Southern positions cultural libertarianism as a sub-branch of broader libertarian philosophy. "Libertarians who are not Cultural Libertarians would argue that the only suppression of speech and expression that is unacceptable is suppression that is perpetrated by the state," says Southern, making it sound like just another way of saying "thick libertarian." Thick libertarianism is a term used by liberty-movement types to describe libertarians who "concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion." But for the nouveau cultural libertarians, freedom from government coercion seems, if anything, an afterthought in the battle to "trigger" Twitter leftists and, at worst, an inconvenient obstacle in the election of President Donald Trump. Breitbart's Allum Bokhari defines cultural libertarians in opposition to cultural authoritarians: "those who want to control culture versus those who want to liberate it." In this sense, we're not talking "the economic libertarianism of Hayek or Rothbard, nor the political theorising of Nozick," writes Bokhari. "Cultural authoritarians from both the left and right occupy most positions of power in government, academia and the media," he asserted in a subsequent article, "Rise of the Cultural Libertarians," and this is bad news for free expression. In contrast, cultural libertarians believe in open expression, viewing art as separate from its political overtones, and recognizing "that efforts to police language and expressio[...]
Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:30:00 -0500
The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up same-sex marriage cases from four states where bans have been upheld by a lower court, opening the possibility that the issue will be resolved nationally, once and for all.
As the video playlist below can attest, Reason TV has been covering the issue of marriage equality and legalization efforts for years.
frameborder="0" src= "http://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLBuns9Evn1w-EQiWmgYg9j--lVV95IRMj" height="315" width="560">
Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:05:00 -0400Reason-Rupe has a new survey and report out on millennials—find the report here. Compared to Americans over 30, millennials are half as likely to identify as politically conservative (14% to 34%), and nearly twice as likely to say they’re liberal (25% to 14%). The latest Reason-Rupe study of millennials finds their political ideologies may largely be an expression of their social and cultural values more than their economic policy preferences. In fact their social values are what draws them closer to President Obama, more than their economic policy preferences. Overall, 30 percent of millennials say they are moderate, 25 percent liberal, 14 percent conservative, 7 percent libertarian, 7 percent progressive, and 17 percent say they are “something else.” Does Liberal Mean "Liberal"? The fact that millennials are so much more comfortable using the liberal label and less willing to use the conservative one raises several questions. Does the word “liberal” mean something different to millennials than older cohorts? Does it convey liberal policy preferences across both social and economic issues? It appears that liberal millennials do distinguish between social and economic liberalism: 67 percent indicate they are strong social liberals while only 49 percent say they are strong economic liberals. In fact, when liberal millennials used their own words to explain why they are liberal, only 32 percent mentioned both economic and social issues. Fully a third (33%) only described their liberal label based on social tolerance, inclusivity, and personal freedom. Ideology in Their Own Words To better understand what these political labels mean to millennials, they were asked to use their own words to explain why they describe themselves as a liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, or progressive. The results indicate that social issues largely define these terms, particularly for liberal millennials. Coding millennials’ responses reveals that for most liberal and progressive millennials, their ideological label primarily reflects social liberalism, not necessarily economic liberalism. Overall, 68 percent of self-identified liberals’ explanations mentioned elements of social tolerance and personal freedom, while only 35 percent mentioned economics. Progressives were similar on social issues (64%), but more mentioned economics (47%). Conservative millennials are considerably less likely than liberals to rely on social matters to define their label. Instead, conservatives’ affiliation equally conveys their views on both economics (41%) and social issues (41%). For libertarians, economic conservatism (67%) as well as social liberalism (48%) define libertarians’ label. Among all millennials, 37 percent mentioned something about social issues and 27 percent mentioned economics. (More found here). To read a selection of millennials actual responses, click through the following slideshow: src= "http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/37059993" width= "476" height="400" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"> A more in-depth analysis of their responses can be found here. To learn more about millennials, check out Reason-Rupe's new report. Read the full report here Read the toplines here 10 Findings About the Millennial Generation, found here Read detailed tables/crosstabs of the results here Survey methodology described here [...]
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:30:00 -0400Immigration, especially illegal immigration, leads to more crime, assert some anti-immigrant think tanks. A 2010 poll in Utah found that 62 percent of respondents "definitely" or "probably" agreed that illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. A 2007 poll conducted on behalf of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice poll also reported that “62 percent of people polled believed illegal immigration is tied to rising crime.” The National Opinion Research Center’s 2000 General Social Survey asked whether “more immigrants cause higher crime rates.” Twenty-five percent of respondents said “very likely” and an additional 48 percent answered “somewhat likely.” In fact, most research today finds that immigrants, including undocumented ones, are less prone to crime than are native-born Americans. A 2008 study by researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California found that “the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison population.” They further noted, “U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.” A 2010 report from the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice observed that, between 1991 and 2008, when nearly 3.7 million foreign-born people, about a third of whom were “unauthorized” immigrants, moved to California, the state’s violent crime rate fell by 55 percent. The national violent crime rate also has fallen by more than 70 percent since its peak in 1993 even as the number of immigrants residing here swelled from 20 to 40 million over the past two decades. In fact, the findings in a 2010 study on immigrant populations in America’s larger cities “suggest that growth in immigration may have been responsible for part of the precipitous crime drop of the 1990s.” On the other hand, there are a few studies that do find a correlation between immigration and higher property crime rates. Using county-level crime and immigrant data between 1980 and 2000, University of Chicago researcher Jorg Spenkuch calculates that “a ten percent increase in the share of immigrants—roughly one percentage point based on numbers from the 2000 Census—is estimated to lead to an increase in the property crime rate of circa 1.2 percent, while the rate of violent crimes remains essentially unaffected.” In 2008, Arizona started enforcing its Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which imposed sanctions on businesses that hired undocumented workers. As a consequence of LAWA, lots of young noncitizen male Mexican migrants left the state. Using data generated by this natural experiment for his 2013 study, University of Cincinnati criminal justice researcher, Aaron Chalfin finds, “After 2008, Arizona's crime rate (particularly its property crime rate) declined by approximately 10 percent implying that the decline in the foreign-born Mexican share induced by LAWA resulted in a decline in property crimes of more than 20 percent.” Let’s set aside the dispute over what the relationship between crime and immigration is for now to consider an interesting new study by team of researchers led by Saint Louis University sociologist Michael Vaughn. That study aims to get beyond the “immigrant paradox” in which immigrants are more socially disadvantaged yet less likely to commit crime. They probe “the full depth of antisocial behavior” using data from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Since there were two surveys, there is data on changes in antisocial behavior adjusting for the length of time immigrants had lived in the U.S. Good old-fashioned “root causes” sociology would suggest that since immigrants are more likely to be male, poor, younger, less educated and live in cities, they should be more prone to antisocial behavior. Yet t[...]
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:30:00 -0400
(image) Polls suggest that most Americans believe that higher immigration results in higher crime rates. After all, good old-fashioned “root causes” sociology would suggest that since immigrants are more likely to be male, poor, younger, less educated and live in cities, they should be more prone to crime and antisocial behavior. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey reports the findings of a new study that compares immigrant and native-born antisocial behavior, and the natives don't look so good.
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:57:00 -0400Dozens of supporters of gay marriage, including many noted journalists and scholars, have signed on to a statement today calling for an end to the kind of public outrage that haunted ex-Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich when people discovered he once donated money to the opposing side. The full statement is posted at Real Clear Politics, and the signatories include many names recognizable here at Reason: Jonathan Rauch, Paypal's Peter Thiel, Eugene and Sasha Volokh (and other contributors to The Volokh Conspiracy), Andrew Sullivan, Charles Murray, Reason Contributing Editor Cathy Young. The letter calls for advocacy and debate, but an end to retributive responses to those who have opposed (or still oppose) same-sex marriage recognition. In the section titled "Disagreement Should Not Be Punished," they argue: We prefer debate that is respectful, but we cannot enforce good manners. We must have the strength to accept that some people think misguidedly and harmfully about us. But we must also acknowledge that disagreement is not, itself, harm or hate. As a viewpoint, opposition to gay marriage is not a punishable offense. It can be expressed hatefully, but it can also be expressed respectfully. We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong, but the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job. Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement's hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions. During the debate over whether what happened to Eich was appropriate—and very frequently in the debate on recognizing gay marriage itself—supporters of how the conflict ended with Eich stepping down invoked interracial marriage. Would we have supported Eich if he was opposed to interracial marriage? How is opposing same-sex marriage different from opposing interracial marriage? Indeed, the issue was immediately raised in the comment thread after signatory Dale Carpenter posted an excerpt at The Volokh Conspiracy. Should a CEO opposed to interracial marriage be immune from any sort of consequences from such a position? Since the laws against interracial marriage were struck down so many years ago, it's appropriate to respond: Who, actually, was punished for being on the wrong side of that debate? Did people who opposed race-mixing lose their jobs for supporting the wrong candidates? Can anybody point to CEOs who were fired back in the '60s or '70s for supporting some racist candidate somewhere? I have done a bit of a stab at trying to track down any info that such outcomes happened, but that would seem to take a lot more time than I have as a blogger. To the extent that those particular civil rights battles ended, I don't recall there being a punishment phase afterward. The battles were certainly punishment enough. Those people on the wrong side—and there were millions of them—didn't go anywhere. They continued on with their lives under new laws and probably most of them eventually came around on the issue, or at least kept it to themselves. Winning a culture war isn't like winning an actual war. You're not stopping an invasion (or initiating one). When the war is over, the participants are still around and they still have to negotiate a way to live together. That realization is why the end of a culture war simply can't have some sort of Nuremberg Trials. There isn't an equivalent. You have to live next door to people who may have extremely different views from yours. Sometimes, those views were actually the majority view at one point. If you try to initiate a punishment phase, why would your opponents then agree to stop fighting and accept your victory? Nobody who knows the history of the gay movement in the United States should countenance people being punished by[...]
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:18:00 -0500
On the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the biggest annual gathering of right-leaning activists, Reason TV correspondent Kennedy talks with former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and other attendees about decentralizing power to the states.
Surprisingly, the attendees she talked with were on board with letting states decide issues such as drug legalization and gay marriage.
"We ought to have the diversity that the states give us," said Thompson, who as an actor appeared for years on Law & Order and in a variety of movies. "We'll see what works out. I'd like to see how that situation out in Colorado [regarding pot legalization] works out, for example....Obamacare...has...reminded us once again how difficult it is and how inappropriate it is for the federal government to take on these massive enterprises."
About 3 minutes. Produced by Meredith Bragg.
Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Along with Reason's Matt Welch, Kennedy co-hosts The Independents, which airs at 9:00 PM ET on Fox Business every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. Check out the show's website for more info.
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:00 -0500
width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ype1g91bYxw" frameborder="0">
Technology and new market models are chipping away at the old idea that the government is the sole-solution provider to social problems, argues William Eggers, co-author of the new book The Solution Revolution: How Business, Government, and Social Enterprises are Teaming up to Solve Society's Toughest Problems.
Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:31:00 -0400In a remarkably interesting new paper, “Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism,” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oakland University systems engineer Barbara Oakley argues that intentions to help people all too often hurt them. Unintended harm is the outcome of she what calls pathological altruism. She defines pathological altruism “as behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.” In her study Oakley explores the psychological and evolutionary underpinnings of empathy and altruism and how they can go wrong. It turns out that pathological altruism is a pervasive problem affecting public policy. As Oakley explains: Good government is a foundation of large-scale societies; government programs are designed to minimize a variety of social problems. Although virtually every program has its critics, well designed programs can be effective in bettering people’s lives with few negative tradeoffs. From a scientifically-based perspective, however, some programs are deeply problematic, often as a result of superficial notions on the part of program designers or implementers about what is genuinely beneficial for others, coupled with a lack of accountability for ensuing programmatic failures. In these pathologically altruistic enterprises, confirmation bias, discounting, motivated reasoning, and egocentric certitude that our approach is the best—in short, the usual biases that underlie pathologies of altruism—appear to play important roles. The above list of pathologies afflicting public policy sounds all too familiar. Although Oakley doesn’t bluntly say so, the modern welfare state can be conceived of as being largely a collection of enterprises conjured into existence by pathological altruism. Social security – discourages citizens from saving and is going bankrupt. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, ObamaCare, employer based health insurance - a dysfunctional system of third party payments that boosts overall health care costs without fostering improved care or services. AFDC (now defunct but replaced by lots of other programs) – encouraged single motherhood and near-permanent unemployment. Subsidized student loans - enable university bureaucracies to enlarge without improving educational outcomes. Obviously some people have benefited from these programs, but it is at least arguable that the unanticipated consequences, e.g., bankruptcy, dysfunctional families, higher unemployment, worse medical care, and so forth, are likely to overwhelm the good intentions behind them. In the context of scientific research, Oakley notes… …that those possessing altruism bias would be most strongly biased to object to the very concept of altruism bias. Research has shown the near impossibility of reaching biased individuals using rational approaches, no matter their level of education or intelligence; such attempts can be likened to squaring the circle. In another vein, researchers from outside a given discipline, and who are thus less vested in the theories of that domain themselves, could initiate studies to determine whether insufficient statistics, exaggerated claims, drawing the wrong conclusions from other papers, or using data selectively to confirm hypotheses might differ among studies that relate to disciplinary biases or moral issues (many hard-science topics ultimately impact issues of deep moral concern) versus those that do not. Within scientific disciplines, the appearance of group-norm–enforcing signed petitions could be used as indicators of the potential for pathologies of altruism; such petitions might communicate important, albeit unintended, information about t[...]
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:16:00 -0400
Nowhere has the red/blue divide between the states been more apparent than on contentious social issues such as gun control, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.
With 37 states under one-party control, lawmakers responded aggressively to national events and political developments in Washington.
After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Democratic states such as New York, Connecticut and Maryland passed sweeping new gun laws. “Nothing focuses your attention like 20 babies being killed,” said Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in his state.
Republican-dominated states, meanwhile, looked to block federal laws and loosened numerous restrictions on guns and ammunition.
Arkansas and North Dakota enacted the strictest limits on abortion (at 12 weeks and six weeks from conception, respectively), in laws that may test Roe v. Wade. In 2014, North Dakota voters will consider a measure that would enshrine in state law the idea that life begins at conception, effectively outlawing abortion. But New York, Washington and California looked to expand abortion access, particularly in the new health insurance exchanges that will launch in October as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:01:00 -0400
(image) Remember the 1990s, when Pat Buchanan went mano a mano with Barney Frank in a duel to the death over the drection of American society? No, neither do I. Yet the supposed "culture war" between liberals and conservatives keeps resurfacing as a concept, if only as a convenient way to frame evolving views on social issues in a partisan red/blue way sufficiently simplified so that even political journalists and government officials can understand. I appeared on HuffPost Live as part of a panel discussing just where the so-called culture war has taken us. Mostly, in a direction of greater tolerance and personal liberty, I would say, on social issues from gay marriage to guns. On economics ... well ... that's up in the air.
On the panel, hosted by Ricky Camilleri, I was joined by Mark Glaze, Director, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller and The Week, and Vickie Henry, Senior Attorney at the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
src= "http://embed.live.huffingtonpost.com/HPLEmbedPlayer/?segmentId=515102befe3444632100005b" scrollable="no" frameborder="0" height="270" width= "480">
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:00:00 -0500Presidential exit polls indicate that a majority of voters thought the economy was the most important issue and that Mitt Romney would be best able to handle the economy and the federal budget deficit. Yet a majority of these same voters elected President Obama. But, among those who cared most about their presidential candidate understanding and caring about their needs, 81 percent voted for Obama and 18 percent voted for Romney. Among the many things Obama campaigned on, Obama also preached the politics of inclusivity, which may well have won him the election. "I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or who you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try." –Obama Presidential Victory speech, 2012. Indeed, according the national exit polls, Obama won over groups who have experienced the politics of exclusivity either in the past, present, or both: Obama won the African-American vote by 87 points, the Latino vote by 44 points, the LGBT vote by 54 points, the secular vote by 28, and women by 11 points. He also won over the non-married by 27 points, the young by 23 points, and households making less than $50,000 a year by 22 points. It’s devastatingly sad that demographic groups’ voting was so polarized. Beyond just the Democrat’s inclusive rhetoric, Republican stances on immigration, social issues, and science played an extraordinarily significant role in how these groups split. Let’s start with immigration. Recall the circus that was the Republican primary and its debates, in particular one held on October 18, 2011. The immigration policy discussion completely devolved from reform, to a border fence, to boots on the ground, to an electrified fence, to using predator drones. We should call it what it is, insanity. Instead of discussing how difficult it is to come to this country legally, and how we should make it easier to come here and work, Republicans focused on how to keep people out. This does not sound inclusive, but exclusive. Moreover, the numbers don’t lie. In 1996, 10 percent of voters were nonwhite; in 2012 nonwhite voters made up 21 percent of all voters. The facts are clear, and from the rhetoric it should be obvious why Latino voters have become increasingly turned off to the Republican Party. The GOP’s rhetoric makes them appear to not like immigrants. It doesn’t have to be this way, in 2004 George W. Bush won 44 percent of Latino voters, but in 2008 Republican John McCain won 31 percent, and by 2012 Mitt Romney won 27 percent of the Latino vote. Now the GOP may be defiant and point out that they say they love legal immigration. Nevertheless, this attitude is not conveyed to immigrants and those who identify with immigrants. The party who espouses a belief in free markets is going to have to extend this logic to labor mobility and sincerely welcome other human beings who want to come to this country to work hard and make a better life for themselves. Young Americans don’t want to belong to a party they think is mean to gays or immigrants. Even if they are fiscally conservative, bedfellows matter to them, and they don’t want to associate with the politics of exclusivity. In fact, even my comparative analysis of self-identified young and old conservatives reveals even young self-identified conservatives are more socially liberal than older conservatives, although statistically similar on economic and foreign policy issues. Un[...]
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:00:00 -0500The 2012 presidential election was long, but thankfully it’s over. Promoting liberty is a long-run strategy, and perfect policies are not adopted over night. Thus we should celebrate when society makes incremental progress in the right direction, and help course-correct when society gives in to the tempting calls of coercion and mandates to get its way. Ultimately it's freedom, not government mandates and laws, that truly move us forward. At the state level, there were several wins for property rights and contract law. Contract law moved forward as Maine, Maryland, and Washington state expanded contract rights to include same-sex marriage. This is significant because it is the first time that voters rather than lawmakers or courts extended these rights. Minnesota voters also rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment, which would have defined marriage as a heterosexual union. (Previously, voters in more than 30 states have approved constitutional bans on gay marriage). Perhaps President Obama’s “evolution” on this issue helped move it forward. Colorado and Washington enhanced property rights as they became the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use. This will help put pressure on highly ineffective and destructive federal law that currently classifies cannabis as an illegal narcotic. This demonstrates the power and importance of federalism—allowing states to have different laws than the federal government—to help move other states and the federal government forward. If it weren’t for federalism, we’d probably have to wait until the central government in Washington woke up to the realization that the Drug War has been a failure. Democratic Senate candidates who ran on the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism beat out conservatives who delved into divisive, and at times asinine, social issues. Take for example, Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, and Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin who beat out Republicans Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, and Tommy Thompson. Although the pundits will continue to debate for weeks the primary reasons for Obama’s win, one important reason he won was by preaching the politics of inclusivity: “It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you're willing to try.“ Inclusivity is a winning strategy. Unfortunately, and ironically, exit polls reveal this was one of the most polarized electorates. Rather than President Obama winning modest margins across all different demographic and political groups, he won big among some and Romney won big among others. Obama’s good intentions notwithstanding, unfortunately his politics of Forward! are unlikely to deliver on their promises of upward economic mobility or inclusivity. However, the principles of freedom can and do bring people together because it does not require the force to take from one to give to another: it offers all individuals the equal opportunity to be free. And as it turn out, this equal opportunity to be free unleashes the ingenuity of human potential as individuals strive to pursue their happiness driving real progress of economic growth, technological advancement, and social tolerance It has been left to libertarians to explain concretely and specifically how expanding individual freedom, not government mandates and rules, helps each and everyone one of us personally and thus as a society as a whole. Freedom is what moves all of us Forward.[...]