Category: national politics & policies

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

Electing a Better Way

domino, power, election, term limits, initiatives

For the seventh time in the last 22 years, the Metro Nashville Council put a measure on the ballot to weaken or abolish their own term limits. And for the seventh time voters said no. 

Term limits were under attack elsewhere in Tennessee — along with Ranked Choice Voting. The Memphis City Council foisted three dubiously worded ballot questions on voters. The measure to weaken the council’s limits, neglected to explain that to voters. The other two misleading measures sought to repeal or block Ranked Choice Voting from going to effect.

Voters put down all three. 

Speaking of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), after several squeaker U.S. Senate races, perhaps Republicans and Democrats will reconsider the reform. 

The Arizona race is still too close to call. Republican Martha McSally leads with 49.3 percent of the vote against Democrat Kyrsten Sinema with 48.4 percent. But Angela Green, the Green Party candidate, took 2.2 percent of the vote. Sinema used to be a Green Party activist, so it’s not unreasonable to think those folks would have preferred her to the Republican.

In Montana, incumbent Democrat Jon Tester has won. He garnered 49.6 percent of the vote, while Republican challenger Matt Rosendale received 47.5 percent and Libertarian Rick Breckenridge racked up 2.9 percent, more than the margin of difference. 

Last week, the Libertarian seemingly endorsed Rosendale. “I am here today to support Matt and his candidacy,” Breckenridge told reporters. “And endorse him in his continuing effort to be the front man in the cause of liberty.”

Using RCV, voters can rank their choices and, were their first choice eliminated, their votes would go to their second choice until some candidate achieves an actual majority.

Thus ending “spoilers” — and giving voters more say-so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement local leaders national politics & policies term limits

THRO

Jack Gargan

What can one person do?

I wish Jack Gargan were here to answer that question — I can almost hear his characteristic chuckle, see the glint in his Irish eyes, in preparation. But sadly, Jack passed away late Sunday night or early Monday morning in Thailand, where he had retired. He was 88 years of age.

This loss, coming on the cusp of yesterday’s election, transported me back 28 years ago — to the 1990 election, when the anti-incumbency, pro-term limits movement was in its infancy.

I had worked all year in Illinois on my first-ever ballot initiative campaign, the Tax Accountability Amendment. Though polls showed our issue at 75 percent support, the Illinois supreme court tossed it off the ballot. I was pretty bummed.

That’s when I saw a full-page newspaper advertisement with a picture of a regular-looking fellow next to a big, bold headline (borrowed from the 1976 movie, Network): “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.”

The ad took politicians in Congress to task for “arrogantly [voting] themselves the biggest pay raise in history,” having “abetted” the Savings & Loan crisis, and turning the United States into “the world’s biggest debtor nation.”

Citizen Gargan pulled $50,000 out of retirement funds to purchase those first advertisements.

And my nerve wasn’t the only one touched. Hundreds of thousands of Americans contributed to allow his all-volunteer organization — Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out (THRO) — to run, as Wikipedia records it, “633 full-page newspaper advertisements in nearly every major newspaper in the nation.”

In addition to earning the title “the father of the term limits movement,” Jack Gargan also served as the driving force, Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News notes, in getting Ross Perot to run for president in 1992.

What one person can do!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Jack Gargan

 

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

When Experts Are Wrong

crystal ball, experts, midterms, mid terms, 2018, election

Standard theory has it that “mid-term elections” serve as a “referendum on the President.”

In a typical article this weekend, a political scientist trotted out that common wisdom and then went on to say that “control of the referendum has shifted. It is now a referendum on leadership, on character . . . and that’s not good news for Donald Trump.”

My crystal ball is in the repair shop, but I have my doubts. The “experts” got the 2016 election so wrong in no small part because they were leveraging their expertise to influence the outcome more than understand the contest.

Academics, journalists and other Democrats want today’s votes to serve as a “referendum on leadership” because they yearn for their leaders and not Trump. 

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a Slate follow-up interview, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter explored the lack of “rapport between the left and what I consider the average American.” He also dismissed as absurd the idea that Donald Trump is racist — a mainstay of the Democratic critique of the president. What Trump is, instead, is “the average American in exaggerated form — blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals” but completely without “constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.”

The Democrats, meanwhile, “have no issues” — except their hatred of Trump, argues Gelernter.

Thankfully, the mid-terms often serve as a check on the power of sitting presidents. But if “average Americans” hear the reasons to vote for the opposition party as all about how racist and xenophobic Trump is, it may work no better than in the last election.

Prophecy’s a tricky business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

A Fraction of a Reaction

“A little dab’ll do ya.”

That was from Brylcream, not 23andme.

President Donald Trump has been mocking Senator Warren, relentlessly, for her claims to native American heritage, calling her “Pocahontas.”* Some have dubbed him “racist” for doing this, but his point was plausibly anti-racist. In 1995, Harvard Law School ballyhooed her as its first “first woman of color” hire. 

 Some argue Warren benefited from this racial categorization, but that’s not been shown. Warren has ceased labeling herself Native American and defended her belief that she was of Cherokee or Delaware descent based on family lore as well as her physiognomy (“high cheekbones”). 

“Let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas,” Trump declared during an uproarious routine at a Montana rally back in July, promising the crowd that “when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage,” he would toss her a DNA kit and offer: “I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”

Under pressure, Warren took a DNA test.** And (inadvisedly?) made a big deal about it.

Upshot? Six to ten generations ago she may indeed have had one ancestor who was a native American. The post-test squabbles have been mostly embarrassing, but Trump at least had the wit to note the lower end of Warren’s native mix was “1/1024, far less than the average American.”

The “memed” jokes on the Internet have been hilarious.

But who gets the last laugh? While we allow ourselves to be done in by little dabs of trivia, the great crises of our age build ominously. 

At what ratio, though, I don’t know.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* And then apologizing to the real Pocahontas for the comparison.

** The full story of who she went to, and the reliability of her DNA report, is itself bizarre and complicated. See “Did Elizabeth Warren Just Kill Identity Politics?” See also Tim Pool.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture national politics & policies

Our Leaders’ Favored Anarchy

mob

“In a sane democracy,” I wrote this weekend at Townhall.com, “the side with the most violent nutcases loses.”

Too hopeful?

Independent video journalist Tim Pool made a similar point yesterday, covering Antifa versus Proud Boys fights in New York, as well as Antifa taking over the downtown streets of Portland, Oregon. He cautions those who defend themselves from going too far, for the media will simply make hay of violence against Antifa, ignoring Antifa provocations.

“Antifa are the ones who are showing up to marches that are peaceful and starting the violence — and then everyone complains there’s violence,” Mr. Pool explains.*

Reasonable question: who is encouraging leftist mobs?

Perhaps two former Obama Administration officials, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton. 

“When they go low, we kick them,” Holder said last week. “That’s what the new Democratic Party is about.”

Mrs. Clinton insisted that “you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.”

Michelle Obama provided a civilized correction: “Fear is not a proper motivator,” she said on the Today show. “Do you want them afraid of their neighbors? Do you want them angry? Do you want them vengeful?”

Journalist Sam Francis had a term for what seems to be on the rise: anarcho-tyranny. Government leaders let mob violence go unpunished, but crack down hard on peaceful citizens for infractions of onerous regulations. 

In Portland, this weekend, the mayor applauded a police decision to stand down, letting Antifa take over the streets.

And so the violence ramps up.

As the President likes to say: “Not good.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* “Well, if Antifa doesn’t show up,” Pool went on, “I assure you, the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer will walk in a big circle and then break up and go find beers somewhere.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies

Not an Accusation

Julie Swetnick

Brett Kavanaugh’s weekend confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 50-48 Senate vote, didn’t settle the allegations of his past sexual conduct in a judicial manner.

Wild disagreement remains.

Many on the Left continue to believe our newest justice repeatedly lied under oath, having abused at least three women when in high school and college. Many on the Right will view all “three” of these female accusers as political players or pawns, who probably should be punished in some way for lying about such a fine man.

While I doubt we can know for certain about a number of the accusations, there should be less doubt on the exact number of accusations. Which were not three but only two.

“I cannot specifically say that he [Brett Kavanaugh] was one of the ones who assaulted me,” Julie Swetnick told NBC News. But she went on to offer a maybe, a could have, some might haves, an I don’t know . . . and more, none of which amounted to an accusation. What she offered was a chain of suppositions: “Because if Brett Kavanaugh was one of those people that did this to me, there is no way in the world that he should go scot-free on this and that he should be on the Supreme Court. . . . If he does, I, uh — there’s no justice in the world.”

As long as this sort of nonsense is treated seriously in the media and among partisans, there can, indeed, be no justice in the world.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

More of the Same?

USMCA, NAFTA, Trump, free trade, harbor scene, protectionism, tariffs,

For those who hated NAFTA, and have supported Donald Trump in his complaints about “the very bad deal” that the North American Free Trade Agreement [allegedly] has been, I ask: what was bad about NAFTA that isn’t in Donald Trump’s new version, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement?

Actual question. I am not in the least bit interested in gotchas, here. I am willing to celebrate USMCA when (a) I can make sense of it and (b) it proves not just more of the same.

The thing I liked best about NAFTA was that it had “Free Trade” in the title. I like free trade. Trade is good; freedom is good. It is not generally bad to trade with Mexico and Canada — for Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans. I simply have trouble believing that politicians and their aides (along with overly-friendly lobbyists) know better than market competition what the terms of those zillions of deals should be.

But I freely admit, what I didn’t like about NAFTA was that there was more “free trade” in the title than in the agreement itself.

NAFTA was managed trade. 

As far as I can make out, so is USMCA.

Oddly, I just heard two of the three Daily Wire guys* praising USMCA for setting quotas on how much of what can be produced where.

Quotas and mandates and the like are not free trade.

“Managed trade” is just another way of saying “protectionism.” Savvy politicians don’t even like calling it “managed trade.” They call it “fair trade.” 

Free trade is fair enough. Politicians’ “fair trade” isn’t free enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Andrew Klavan and Michael Knowles, recent podcasts: dailywire.com.

PDF for printing

 

Illustration: Dutch free traders in Harbor Scene by Abraham Storck  (1644–1708)

 

Categories
government transparency ideological culture national politics & policies

Last Week’s Least Credible Answer

Diane Feinstein, Kavenaugh, Supreme Court

So, who was lying, last week, at America’s big show trial — er, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing?

Professor Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Many Americans took sides. I cannot. Both said believable as well as scarcely believable things, but I’m with that minority who admits not to know what to believe.

Except for one thing: I am pretty sure I know who told the biggest whopper.

Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Democratic senators, especially Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), repeatedly pressured Kavanaugh to himself demand an FBI investigation to clear his name. It all seemed Orwellian: to make the accused insist on an investigation into allegations he had denied. It was also odd, considering, as Kavanaugh reminded his inquisitors, that he had repeatedly accepted any investigation the committee desired.

They just wanted him to demand it.

All of which is nuts, since the Committee possesses subpeona power, and can do an investigation itself.

But the weirdest aspect? The FBI had already checked Kavanaugh’s background, had performed an official investigation. But since Senator Feinstein had not tipped the agency off to Professor Ford’s confidential accusation — had effectively sat on the letter — the FBI hadn’t covered that precise avenue of inquiry.

And then, after the hearings were nearly over . . . the leak. And the bouhaha.

When asked whether she leaked Ford’s epistle, Feinstein said No. When asked if her staff did, she said she . . . hadn’t asked them.

Oh, come on.

Not as believable as either Ford or Kavanaugh.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

An Evil Ism

socialism, Antifa, means, ends, refutation, fascism, intentions

With “democratic socialism” again on the rise, a refresher course in history seems apt: socialism has demonstrated the strong tendency to end up in totalitarian tyranny, poverty, and genocide.

As I mentioned on Monday, Reason’s Nick Gillespie suspects that this response is not very convincing to people tempted by socialism. But really, why not? What about a history of horror could be appealing?

Which is why the question “Do Socialists Mean Well?” as answered by Grant Babcock, might help. Babcock answers in the negative.* “Socialism is not ultimately an end but a means. And as a means, socialism is evil.”

With an evil means, one’s chosen end is irrelevant, because of other results. “If I told you I wanted to end homelessness, you might say I had good intentions,” Babcock explains. But if he confessed to seek that end “by conscripting the homeless into the army . . . [n]ot only should you say I have bad intentions, you shouldn’t give me any moral credit for saying I want to end homelessness.”

True. But Babcock has to engage in his extended argument about means because, for purposes of his essay, anyway, he began with the premise that while fascists are evil because they seek directly to harm some people, socialists do not.

Uh, really? Most socialists make much of taking from “the rich,” however they define the rich — as “the one percent” or “the privileged,” etc.

Call it expropriation; call it theft: that’s a lot of anger and ill will directed to one group of people.

In that way, the appeal of socialism is too much like the appeal of fascism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Babcock, by the way, denies the label “socialist” to social democrats who call themselves “democratic socialists” — by definition. On this matter, see “Bernie’s Slippery Definition of Democratic Socialism” and “Is Denmark Socialist?” on this site.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies term limits

Wise American Tradition

George Washington, resignation, king, father, term limits

On Sunday, former Pres. Barack Obama acknowledged — in the breach — the “wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage and making room for new voices and new ideas.” 

The former president’s talk at the University of Illinois made big news in large part because it was a direct attack on the current president.

“We have our first president, George Washington, to thank for setting that example,” Mr. Obama explained to the students. “After he led the colonies to victory, as General Washington, there were no constraints on him, really. He was practically a god to those who had followed him into battle. There was no Constitution.  There were no democratic norms that guided what he should or could do. And he could have made himself all-powerful; he could have made himself potentially president for life. Instead, he resigned as commander-in-chief and moved back to his country estate.”

Noting that “six years later” Washington was elected president, Obama added, “But after two terms, he resigned again and rode off into the sunset.”

The two-term limit, constitutionally imposed on modern presidents, was established as a tradition when self-imposed by the man known as the father of our country.

“The point Washington made, the point that is essential to American democracy, is that in a government of, and by and for the people, there should be no permanent ruling class,” the former president concluded, “. . . only citizens, who through their elected and temporary representatives determine our course and determine our character.”

On that, Americans across the political spectrum can agree. 

It’s called term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Illustration: detail from “The Resignation of General Washington, December 23, 1783,” oil on canvas, by the American artist John Trumbull.