There’s a major political bubble deflating rapidly. It has two primary components:
Global Warming
The Bush Derangement Bubble
These two are interconnected.
The legacy media pumped up Bush as the devil incarnate for years, based on highly dubious claims, and some outright bogus data. The legacy media pumped up global warming as the biggest disaster since the dinosaurs were wiped out, based on highly dubious claims, and some outright bogus data. Neither narrative bore the slightest relationship to reality. And yet, they were successful.
Obama was elected based on this bubble of bogus data. The Democrats got their majorities in Congress from the same source. But now, thanks to the ever increasing power of the internet, the bubble has been popped. It now appears that the collapse is going to have speed and magnitude of biblical proportions.
There will be much collateral change that results from this rapid bubble deflation, some good, some bad, but in most cases unpredictable. But since we’ll finally be dealing from an approach much closer to reality, on balance, the changes are likely to be good.
Like it or not, we live in interesting times!
:-)
TCS
Question with Boldness -- Thomas Jefferson
Hold to the Truth -- George Washington
Speak Without Fear -- Martin Luther King
Showing posts with label Politics and Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics and Freedom. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Meet Depressed: Joe Biden :Revelation
Ol’ Joe Biden is reliably entertaining, and he didn’t disappoint today.
Today, however, he was extremely illuminating, which is quite out of character for him. To be fair, the illumination was unintentional…
Gregory (Who has done FAR better as host of Meet The Press than I expected; I was a hopeless Russert fan) asked him (all quotes approximate):
“There are a lot of people saying that the Obama administration isn’t taking the War on Terror seriously. How do you respond to that?”
And Ol’ Joe said:
“They must not be paying attention, then. We take the War on Al Qaeda extremely seriously…” and then went on to rant about the current Afghanistan campaign and Dick Cheney generally.
See the problem?
The QUESTION was about the War on Terror.
The ANSWER was about the War on Al Qaeda.
!!!THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE!!!!
This is extraordinarily revealing about the fundamental perceptual handicap that the Obama administration has on this entire issue. The problem is a size 1000, and they see it as a size 10. I haven’t seen anyone else pick up on this yet, but I’m sure they will.
And, full disclosure, I’ll second Dick Cheney’s view, and state that I completely endorse what the Obama administration is doing in Afghanistan currently, in general, and in Pakistan as well.
Carry on, Mr President!
:-)
TCS
Today, however, he was extremely illuminating, which is quite out of character for him. To be fair, the illumination was unintentional…
Gregory (Who has done FAR better as host of Meet The Press than I expected; I was a hopeless Russert fan) asked him (all quotes approximate):
“There are a lot of people saying that the Obama administration isn’t taking the War on Terror seriously. How do you respond to that?”
And Ol’ Joe said:
“They must not be paying attention, then. We take the War on Al Qaeda extremely seriously…” and then went on to rant about the current Afghanistan campaign and Dick Cheney generally.
See the problem?
The QUESTION was about the War on Terror.
The ANSWER was about the War on Al Qaeda.
!!!THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE!!!!
This is extraordinarily revealing about the fundamental perceptual handicap that the Obama administration has on this entire issue. The problem is a size 1000, and they see it as a size 10. I haven’t seen anyone else pick up on this yet, but I’m sure they will.
And, full disclosure, I’ll second Dick Cheney’s view, and state that I completely endorse what the Obama administration is doing in Afghanistan currently, in general, and in Pakistan as well.
Carry on, Mr President!
:-)
TCS
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Health Care Deform -- The Irrational Debate
Before diving into the specific irrationality in the current health care deform debate, I need to dispel a myth. Do you remember the myth that the warmists threw out saying that the issue of global warming was “settled science?” Pure nonsense, of course, as is becoming increasingly clear.
The current myth is that “everyone agrees” that we need to do something about health care. Clearly false. I don’t agree. I know many people who don’t agree. But, more important than my limited set of personal data points is the fact that the American people don’t agree. In the most recent poll that I saw, 76% of Americans are happy with their health care.
The only health care “crisis” is how badly the government wants to screw it up.
The debate is irrational because people don’t know what they’re talking about, and are mangling the English language. The Democrats say they want to provide “insurance” for everyone. But it’s obvious from their proposals that they have no idea what insurance is, or how it works. This is best illustrated around the issue of “pre-existing conditions”.
Let’s say you have diabetes (as an increasing number of Americans do), and you apply to get health insurance. The insurance company may decline to cover you, or decline to cover anything related to your diabetes, because you already have it; it’s a pre-existing condition. This is entirely rational behavior on the part of the insurance company.
Insurance is about risk. Risk is about things that aren't known. Are you going to trip on the stairs and break your arm? Who knows? That means it’s a risk. But, insurance companies know roughly how often people fall and break their arms. So, they go through an arcane calculation, and decide the aggregate cost of the broken arms they are on the hook for, based on how many people they insure, how likely those people are to break their arms, and the cost of fixing a broken arm. That cost is then spread around the entire pool of people they insure. The people who break their arms get their bills paid. That’s how insurance works. It spreads around the risk of unknown things.
Now, suppose you fall and break your arm, and then you go to an insurance company, and you ask them to sell you a policy to cover the cost of the arm that you already broke.
How dumb is that? Breaking your arm isn’t a risk anymore, and insurance is about risk. You now have a broken arm---a pre-existing condition.
If you have a pre-existing condition, and you can’t afford to pay your medical bills, you need charity, not insurance. When people talk about providing “insurance” for a pre-existing condition, they are either lying, clueless, or both.
And, there’s another distinction that gets blurred in all of this: the distinction between charity and socialism. The difference is very clear.
Charity is voluntary.
Socialism is based on theft.
When you propose to steal money from some people to give it to others to pay for their pre-existing medical conditions, it’s not insurance. It’s not even charity. It’s socialism, socialized medicine, and it’s theft. And it’s extremely bad for the country.
Fortunately, the hugely socialist proposals that have been floating around seem to be going entirely off the rails. The poll numbers are clear. The more people know what's in this plan, the less they like it. And now, they will find out a lot about it before it ever goes to a vote. Congresscritters can expect to get a blistering earful during the August recess, and the advocates of socialism are not going to like what they’re going to hear. They’re going to hear that most people like the health care they have, and that Congress damned well better not do anything to mess with that, or they will regret it in 2010.
The worm has turned.
As a libertarian, I know all taxation is theft. As a realist, I know that sometimes it’s the right thing to do. But ObamaCare is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
If we do anything to our health care system (which is unnecessary, and ObamaCare would be hugely bad for the country), we should do five, and only five, things:
1) Mandate that Americans can buy insurance from any state that they choose. Eliminate state restrictions on out-of-state insurance purchases. In addition to making a big dent in costs to the consumer, this would be…for once…a proper use of the commerce clause.
2) We need to get serious about tort reform. Loser pays! This would go a long way to eliminating wasteful, expensive, unnecessary tests by doctors practicing defensive medicine.
3) Get the waste, fraud, and corruption out of Medicare and Medicaid
4) Expand Medicaid to cover people who are really too poor to get their own insurance (not to include people who choose to spend their money on other things)
5) Provide tax credits and/or vouchers to people who can afford to buy insurance with some help. In addition, level the tax playing field. Anyone who buys health insurance on their own, rather than through an employer, should get the same tax benefit that employers get now for providing it
That’s it. No further molestation of the free market required!
I was personally responsible for implementing the upgraded Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) for the State of Nevada while I was Chief Information Officer for the state, so I know something about this.
I sent the above proposal to President Obama (in a slightly more polite form). We’ll see what he says!
What do you say?
The current myth is that “everyone agrees” that we need to do something about health care. Clearly false. I don’t agree. I know many people who don’t agree. But, more important than my limited set of personal data points is the fact that the American people don’t agree. In the most recent poll that I saw, 76% of Americans are happy with their health care.
The only health care “crisis” is how badly the government wants to screw it up.
The debate is irrational because people don’t know what they’re talking about, and are mangling the English language. The Democrats say they want to provide “insurance” for everyone. But it’s obvious from their proposals that they have no idea what insurance is, or how it works. This is best illustrated around the issue of “pre-existing conditions”.
Let’s say you have diabetes (as an increasing number of Americans do), and you apply to get health insurance. The insurance company may decline to cover you, or decline to cover anything related to your diabetes, because you already have it; it’s a pre-existing condition. This is entirely rational behavior on the part of the insurance company.
Insurance is about risk. Risk is about things that aren't known. Are you going to trip on the stairs and break your arm? Who knows? That means it’s a risk. But, insurance companies know roughly how often people fall and break their arms. So, they go through an arcane calculation, and decide the aggregate cost of the broken arms they are on the hook for, based on how many people they insure, how likely those people are to break their arms, and the cost of fixing a broken arm. That cost is then spread around the entire pool of people they insure. The people who break their arms get their bills paid. That’s how insurance works. It spreads around the risk of unknown things.
Now, suppose you fall and break your arm, and then you go to an insurance company, and you ask them to sell you a policy to cover the cost of the arm that you already broke.
How dumb is that? Breaking your arm isn’t a risk anymore, and insurance is about risk. You now have a broken arm---a pre-existing condition.
If you have a pre-existing condition, and you can’t afford to pay your medical bills, you need charity, not insurance. When people talk about providing “insurance” for a pre-existing condition, they are either lying, clueless, or both.
And, there’s another distinction that gets blurred in all of this: the distinction between charity and socialism. The difference is very clear.
Charity is voluntary.
Socialism is based on theft.
When you propose to steal money from some people to give it to others to pay for their pre-existing medical conditions, it’s not insurance. It’s not even charity. It’s socialism, socialized medicine, and it’s theft. And it’s extremely bad for the country.
Fortunately, the hugely socialist proposals that have been floating around seem to be going entirely off the rails. The poll numbers are clear. The more people know what's in this plan, the less they like it. And now, they will find out a lot about it before it ever goes to a vote. Congresscritters can expect to get a blistering earful during the August recess, and the advocates of socialism are not going to like what they’re going to hear. They’re going to hear that most people like the health care they have, and that Congress damned well better not do anything to mess with that, or they will regret it in 2010.
The worm has turned.
As a libertarian, I know all taxation is theft. As a realist, I know that sometimes it’s the right thing to do. But ObamaCare is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
If we do anything to our health care system (which is unnecessary, and ObamaCare would be hugely bad for the country), we should do five, and only five, things:
1) Mandate that Americans can buy insurance from any state that they choose. Eliminate state restrictions on out-of-state insurance purchases. In addition to making a big dent in costs to the consumer, this would be…for once…a proper use of the commerce clause.
2) We need to get serious about tort reform. Loser pays! This would go a long way to eliminating wasteful, expensive, unnecessary tests by doctors practicing defensive medicine.
3) Get the waste, fraud, and corruption out of Medicare and Medicaid
4) Expand Medicaid to cover people who are really too poor to get their own insurance (not to include people who choose to spend their money on other things)
5) Provide tax credits and/or vouchers to people who can afford to buy insurance with some help. In addition, level the tax playing field. Anyone who buys health insurance on their own, rather than through an employer, should get the same tax benefit that employers get now for providing it
That’s it. No further molestation of the free market required!
I was personally responsible for implementing the upgraded Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) for the State of Nevada while I was Chief Information Officer for the state, so I know something about this.
I sent the above proposal to President Obama (in a slightly more polite form). We’ll see what he says!
What do you say?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Fix
Sometimes, on rare occasion, I’ve been known to rant about the level of disregard for the original intent of the Constitution, and numerous other Evils in politics and government today. It occurred to me that, to be fair, I should say what needs to be done to actually fix the problems.
Here’s The Fix:
The Constitution and all relevant laws will be modified or deleted as required to accommodate the following changes:
1) In addition to current requirements, an individual must speak, read, and write English clearly to be a US citizen. At least one natural parent must be a citizen for “birthright” citizenship to apply.
2) In order to vote in federal elections, a citizen must also meet one of the following two sets of requirements:
Set A)
I) Be at least 25 years old
II) Own property. Property ownership for this purpose must include the individual’s primary residence, and no more than two individuals may claim the same property/residence for this purpose.
III) Pass a competency test to demonstrate minimum competency in:
a) US History, with emphasis on the Constitution
b) Basic mathematics
c) Basic logical reasoning
Set B) Be at least 18 years old, and be a military combat veteran
3) In order to run for any federal office, a person must be a citizen eligible to vote, and meet the following additional requirements:
A) House: Be at least 30 years old, or 18 years old and a military combat veteran
B) Senate: Be at least 35 years old
C) President:
I) Be at least 40 years old
II) Completed at least one full term as Governor of a US State, or one full term as a US Senator
4) Except in time of war, federal taxes and spending may never exceed 10% of GDP. In time of war, non-defense spending may never exceed 10% of GDP.
5) Social Security and Medicare shall be phased out over 20 years after The Fix as follows:
A) Anyone currently 60 or older gets full current benefits
B) Anyone currently under 20 gets zero benefits
C) Anyone between 20 and 60 will get pro-rated benefits
6) The income tax shall be abolished by freezing all current income tax rates, and then reducing each by 10% per year until the income tax is eliminated.
7) Other Amendments not-withstanding, the Bill of Rights shall remain in full effect, but shall apply only to actions taken by the Federal government, and shall have no impact on the states. States are free to adopt any, all, or none of the amendments, at their sole discretion.
8) The doctrine of specific enumerated powers shall be in full effect. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution, shall not be exercised by the federal government.
9) Any state may secede from the union on affirmative vote of 2/3 of its citizens. Terms of the divorce shall be mutually agreed by a panel consisting of the Governor of the State, the US President, and a third individual chosen by those two.
10) No one may serve in the House of Representatives for more than 12 years. No one may serve in the Senate for more than 18 years.
11) All current federal laws must be renewed within 10 years from the date of The Fix, or they expire. Each proposed renewal must be by individual vote of each legislator, with a recorded vote by name.
12) The commerce clause is amended to make it explicit that congress can forbid restrictions on trade between the states, but not impose them. All laws currently restricting trade between the states, or restricting behavior not clearly, obviously, and directly related to trade between the states, are repealed.
13) Patents and copyrights shall be limited to not more than 10 years. A 5 year extension may be granted for substantive, material changes only, but under no circumstances may any patent or copyright last beyond 20 years.
14) No monopoly authority of any kind shall be granted to the post office.
15) Delete the two year restriction on military appropriations
16) The borders shall be secured sufficiently that illegal entry is reduced to less than 1% of all entries, by reasonable statistical estimate.
17) For 5 years after The Fix, a citizen shall be required to show a government issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. After 5 years, the ID must be directly traceable to citizenship documentation in order to vote.
18) The Second Amendment shall be amended to read: “The right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
19) The federal budget must be balanced, except in time of war. In time of war, the non-defense related part of the budget must be balanced. The debt existing at the time of The Fix shall be repaid over a period of 100 years. Additional debt incurred during future times of war shall be repaid within 20 years of incurring the debt. No debt may be incurred except in time of war, although a reserve account amounting to 10% of the federal budget may be established. Existing non-defense deficits must be reduced by 10%/year until they are eliminated.
20) Allowability of evidence in federal crimes shall be based on the reliability of the evidence, not on the method by which it was obtained.
21) The 10th Amendment shall be strictly construed. No power shall be exercised by the federal government unless explicitly authorized by the constitution.
22) In the 14th Amendment, “due process” shall be construed to mean that laws and rules set in state statute are followed, and does not imply any specific content restrictions to those laws and rules.
23) The 17th Amendment is amended so that Senators shall be elected by the state legislatures, as originally specified.
24) The 16th Amendment is repealed. No income tax shall be permitted at the federal level.
25) The 26th Amendment is repealed.
Not that complicated, really. We just need to go back to the vision of limited government that the founding fathers intended. By outlining the specifics that are needed, I have now retained my moral right to whine about the way things are.
That right is very important to me!
:-)
TCS
Here’s The Fix:
The Constitution and all relevant laws will be modified or deleted as required to accommodate the following changes:
1) In addition to current requirements, an individual must speak, read, and write English clearly to be a US citizen. At least one natural parent must be a citizen for “birthright” citizenship to apply.
2) In order to vote in federal elections, a citizen must also meet one of the following two sets of requirements:
Set A)
I) Be at least 25 years old
II) Own property. Property ownership for this purpose must include the individual’s primary residence, and no more than two individuals may claim the same property/residence for this purpose.
III) Pass a competency test to demonstrate minimum competency in:
a) US History, with emphasis on the Constitution
b) Basic mathematics
c) Basic logical reasoning
Set B) Be at least 18 years old, and be a military combat veteran
3) In order to run for any federal office, a person must be a citizen eligible to vote, and meet the following additional requirements:
A) House: Be at least 30 years old, or 18 years old and a military combat veteran
B) Senate: Be at least 35 years old
C) President:
I) Be at least 40 years old
II) Completed at least one full term as Governor of a US State, or one full term as a US Senator
4) Except in time of war, federal taxes and spending may never exceed 10% of GDP. In time of war, non-defense spending may never exceed 10% of GDP.
5) Social Security and Medicare shall be phased out over 20 years after The Fix as follows:
A) Anyone currently 60 or older gets full current benefits
B) Anyone currently under 20 gets zero benefits
C) Anyone between 20 and 60 will get pro-rated benefits
6) The income tax shall be abolished by freezing all current income tax rates, and then reducing each by 10% per year until the income tax is eliminated.
7) Other Amendments not-withstanding, the Bill of Rights shall remain in full effect, but shall apply only to actions taken by the Federal government, and shall have no impact on the states. States are free to adopt any, all, or none of the amendments, at their sole discretion.
8) The doctrine of specific enumerated powers shall be in full effect. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution, shall not be exercised by the federal government.
9) Any state may secede from the union on affirmative vote of 2/3 of its citizens. Terms of the divorce shall be mutually agreed by a panel consisting of the Governor of the State, the US President, and a third individual chosen by those two.
10) No one may serve in the House of Representatives for more than 12 years. No one may serve in the Senate for more than 18 years.
11) All current federal laws must be renewed within 10 years from the date of The Fix, or they expire. Each proposed renewal must be by individual vote of each legislator, with a recorded vote by name.
12) The commerce clause is amended to make it explicit that congress can forbid restrictions on trade between the states, but not impose them. All laws currently restricting trade between the states, or restricting behavior not clearly, obviously, and directly related to trade between the states, are repealed.
13) Patents and copyrights shall be limited to not more than 10 years. A 5 year extension may be granted for substantive, material changes only, but under no circumstances may any patent or copyright last beyond 20 years.
14) No monopoly authority of any kind shall be granted to the post office.
15) Delete the two year restriction on military appropriations
16) The borders shall be secured sufficiently that illegal entry is reduced to less than 1% of all entries, by reasonable statistical estimate.
17) For 5 years after The Fix, a citizen shall be required to show a government issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. After 5 years, the ID must be directly traceable to citizenship documentation in order to vote.
18) The Second Amendment shall be amended to read: “The right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
19) The federal budget must be balanced, except in time of war. In time of war, the non-defense related part of the budget must be balanced. The debt existing at the time of The Fix shall be repaid over a period of 100 years. Additional debt incurred during future times of war shall be repaid within 20 years of incurring the debt. No debt may be incurred except in time of war, although a reserve account amounting to 10% of the federal budget may be established. Existing non-defense deficits must be reduced by 10%/year until they are eliminated.
20) Allowability of evidence in federal crimes shall be based on the reliability of the evidence, not on the method by which it was obtained.
21) The 10th Amendment shall be strictly construed. No power shall be exercised by the federal government unless explicitly authorized by the constitution.
22) In the 14th Amendment, “due process” shall be construed to mean that laws and rules set in state statute are followed, and does not imply any specific content restrictions to those laws and rules.
23) The 17th Amendment is amended so that Senators shall be elected by the state legislatures, as originally specified.
24) The 16th Amendment is repealed. No income tax shall be permitted at the federal level.
25) The 26th Amendment is repealed.
Not that complicated, really. We just need to go back to the vision of limited government that the founding fathers intended. By outlining the specifics that are needed, I have now retained my moral right to whine about the way things are.
That right is very important to me!
:-)
TCS
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The 3rd Party Paradox
I’ve cycled through a number of party affiliations over the course of my political life. When I was poor and ignorant, I registered Democrat. When I was still ignorant, but no longer poor, I re-registered Republican. When I finally gained some more detailed understanding of both my own views, and the positions of the two major parties, I re-registered Libertarian. And, at various times for short periods, I was registered as non-partisan.
While I’m currently a registered Republican, I’m really best described as a recovering Libertarian.
I had been very active in the movement to build space colonies for many years, but I finally concluded that the cost was just prohibitive with current technology. I lost my faith in that path, but I still wanted to make a difference in the world. If I couldn’t build a new, free world, I could at least try to make this one freer.
I was living in California at the time, and decided that I would run for State Assembly in District 20, centered in the Milpitas/Fremont area near San Jose. When I asked the “old hands” why Libertarians never win, I was told that:
1) We never raise enough money
2) We never get enough publicity
So, I focused the campaign on raising money and getting publicity, which we did at record levels. I raised as much money as the Republican candidate. I got an outstanding level of publicity, fully competitive with both the other candidates. And, at the end of the day, I got 7% of the vote. That’s in the very high percentiles of what Libertarians get in 3-way races, but the bottom line is, I lost. I did, however, gain some wonderful friends, and some insightful experience.
Money and publicity are not enough. The main paper in the district said I was the best 3rd party candidate they had ever seen, but they didn’t think the voters were ready for the level of reduction in government that I was proposing. And they were right. That’s not going to change, ever, with anything like the current electorate.
So, what’s the value of third parties? Paradoxically, it seems that the more “successful” a third party is, the more it drives the results farther from their objective! If they really want to be effective, people who believe in the Green philosophy should work hard for the Libertarian Party, and people who believe in freedom should work hard for the Green Party. Probably give them money, too.
People need to start looking at the results of their efforts, instead of the process. And, as a hint, philosophical pontification is almost invariably about the process, and not about the results.
There are many examples of the 3rd Party Paradox, perhaps the most visible being the defeat of Bush 41 by Bill Clinton. Ross Perot professed a desire to increase the level of accountability and responsibility in government. So, he gets Clinton elected. Smooth move, Ex Lax! More recently, the same scenario is playing out in Minnesota as I type. The third party candidate was never going to win, but seems poised on the edge of electing the candidate least sympathetic to his views.
Third party adherents try to suggest that “there’s no difference between the two major parties”, but this is, of course, patent nonsense. Both major parties have evil qualities, to be sure, but they are very different. One of the few good things that President Obama is doing is bringing this fallacy into stark relief. Even when I was an active, ardent Libertarian, I never bought in to the equivalence myth. From the standpoint of freedom, Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats, pathetic though they most certainly are in that regard.
In addition to the more public examples of the paradox, I have two painful personal examples as well. When I ran for State Assembly in 1994, and got 7% of the vote, the Democrat won with just barely over 50%. The Republicans immediately and ongoingly blamed me for costing them that election. The numbers didn’t quite add up, if you just added my total to his. But, if instead of running against him, I had actively worked for him? Dunno. It could easily have turned out differently.
And, there was an interesting Chaotic effect in that case. The State Assembly was split literally 50/50 that year, and as a result, Willy Brown retained his position as Speaker. There’s a real blow for freedom on my part! If the Republican had won in my race, that wouldn’t have happened, and I was blamed for that result. I don’t think the numbers would have quite worked, even if I had worked for the Republican---but they very easily might have, if things had been only slightly different.
The more troubling case for me was the election of 1998, where the numbers very strongly support the contention that I re-elected Harry Reid to the US Senate. I was Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada for that election, and I recruited a full slate of candidates, including a strong candidate to run against Reid. The party was largely in disarray when I took over, and if I hadn’t recruited that candidate, there most likely wouldn’t have been one at all. Exit polls clearly show that, absent a Libertarian candidate, Libertarians will fairly reliably vote 2:1 in favor of the Republican in the race (a wise choice). Reid won by a few hundred votes. The Libertarian candidate got a few thousand votes.
If I hadn’t recruited a strong Libertarian candidate? Do the math. If you like Harry Reid, you should thank me. Another major blow on my part for the cause of freedom!
Crap.
So, what did I do? I was the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Nevada in the year 1998, and after I lost to him decisively, the victorious Republican, Governor Kenny Guinn, appointed me to his cabinet, where I served as Chief Information Officer for 7 years. During that time, I saved the taxpayers millions of dollars, shrinking my Department staff by over 20%, while simultaneously increasing production by a like amount.
Frequently, in politics in the real world, you will face an iron clad choice between making a statement, and making a difference. Occasionally, rarely, you can do both, but the vast majority of the time, you’ll need to decide which of the two is more important to you.
Think results, not process.
So, what’s a freedom lover to do? We’ll discuss that in future installments!
:-)
TCS
While I’m currently a registered Republican, I’m really best described as a recovering Libertarian.
I had been very active in the movement to build space colonies for many years, but I finally concluded that the cost was just prohibitive with current technology. I lost my faith in that path, but I still wanted to make a difference in the world. If I couldn’t build a new, free world, I could at least try to make this one freer.
I was living in California at the time, and decided that I would run for State Assembly in District 20, centered in the Milpitas/Fremont area near San Jose. When I asked the “old hands” why Libertarians never win, I was told that:
1) We never raise enough money
2) We never get enough publicity
So, I focused the campaign on raising money and getting publicity, which we did at record levels. I raised as much money as the Republican candidate. I got an outstanding level of publicity, fully competitive with both the other candidates. And, at the end of the day, I got 7% of the vote. That’s in the very high percentiles of what Libertarians get in 3-way races, but the bottom line is, I lost. I did, however, gain some wonderful friends, and some insightful experience.
Money and publicity are not enough. The main paper in the district said I was the best 3rd party candidate they had ever seen, but they didn’t think the voters were ready for the level of reduction in government that I was proposing. And they were right. That’s not going to change, ever, with anything like the current electorate.
So, what’s the value of third parties? Paradoxically, it seems that the more “successful” a third party is, the more it drives the results farther from their objective! If they really want to be effective, people who believe in the Green philosophy should work hard for the Libertarian Party, and people who believe in freedom should work hard for the Green Party. Probably give them money, too.
People need to start looking at the results of their efforts, instead of the process. And, as a hint, philosophical pontification is almost invariably about the process, and not about the results.
There are many examples of the 3rd Party Paradox, perhaps the most visible being the defeat of Bush 41 by Bill Clinton. Ross Perot professed a desire to increase the level of accountability and responsibility in government. So, he gets Clinton elected. Smooth move, Ex Lax! More recently, the same scenario is playing out in Minnesota as I type. The third party candidate was never going to win, but seems poised on the edge of electing the candidate least sympathetic to his views.
Third party adherents try to suggest that “there’s no difference between the two major parties”, but this is, of course, patent nonsense. Both major parties have evil qualities, to be sure, but they are very different. One of the few good things that President Obama is doing is bringing this fallacy into stark relief. Even when I was an active, ardent Libertarian, I never bought in to the equivalence myth. From the standpoint of freedom, Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats, pathetic though they most certainly are in that regard.
In addition to the more public examples of the paradox, I have two painful personal examples as well. When I ran for State Assembly in 1994, and got 7% of the vote, the Democrat won with just barely over 50%. The Republicans immediately and ongoingly blamed me for costing them that election. The numbers didn’t quite add up, if you just added my total to his. But, if instead of running against him, I had actively worked for him? Dunno. It could easily have turned out differently.
And, there was an interesting Chaotic effect in that case. The State Assembly was split literally 50/50 that year, and as a result, Willy Brown retained his position as Speaker. There’s a real blow for freedom on my part! If the Republican had won in my race, that wouldn’t have happened, and I was blamed for that result. I don’t think the numbers would have quite worked, even if I had worked for the Republican---but they very easily might have, if things had been only slightly different.
The more troubling case for me was the election of 1998, where the numbers very strongly support the contention that I re-elected Harry Reid to the US Senate. I was Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada for that election, and I recruited a full slate of candidates, including a strong candidate to run against Reid. The party was largely in disarray when I took over, and if I hadn’t recruited that candidate, there most likely wouldn’t have been one at all. Exit polls clearly show that, absent a Libertarian candidate, Libertarians will fairly reliably vote 2:1 in favor of the Republican in the race (a wise choice). Reid won by a few hundred votes. The Libertarian candidate got a few thousand votes.
If I hadn’t recruited a strong Libertarian candidate? Do the math. If you like Harry Reid, you should thank me. Another major blow on my part for the cause of freedom!
Crap.
So, what did I do? I was the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Nevada in the year 1998, and after I lost to him decisively, the victorious Republican, Governor Kenny Guinn, appointed me to his cabinet, where I served as Chief Information Officer for 7 years. During that time, I saved the taxpayers millions of dollars, shrinking my Department staff by over 20%, while simultaneously increasing production by a like amount.
Frequently, in politics in the real world, you will face an iron clad choice between making a statement, and making a difference. Occasionally, rarely, you can do both, but the vast majority of the time, you’ll need to decide which of the two is more important to you.
Think results, not process.
So, what’s a freedom lover to do? We’ll discuss that in future installments!
:-)
TCS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
