Category: political challengers

Categories
ballot access political challengers

The Logic of the Instant Runoff

Reid Wilson, at the Washington Post, regales us with seven U.S. senatorial races where Libertarian Party candidates could swing elections, and thus control of the Senate. Last weekend at Townhall, I exhorted readers to work for transpartisan reforms “like term limits . . . and other measures aimed at greater representation, [such as] establishing ranked choice voting.”

The two articles are not unrelated.

Conservatives and libertarians are often united in wanting to replace progressive Democrats with small-government contenders. But they are not united in how to do this. Many libertarians balk at voting for hardline social conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and middle-of-the-road statists like John McCain.

So the Libertarian Party runs candidates that have in recent elections gained traction with voters — enough to pull independent voters away from Republicans and sometimes enabling Democrats to win.

Republican entreaties to libertarians (“you’re killing us out here!”) appear to be no more effective than libertarian entreaties to Republicans (“want our support? try taking your limited government stances seriously!”).

What to do? Republican partisans should support Instant Runoff Voting, which would

  1. Allow people to rank their choices for office, and
  2. Instruct vote-counters to take the votes of those who selected a No. 1 pick of, say, a Libertarian who garnered the smallest number of votes,  and add those ballots’ second ranked vote (either for a D or an R) as the vote to count in the “instant runoff.”

This would allow for better expression of voter preference, solving the “wasted vote” problem and ceasing to make the “best the enemy of the good.”

Alternately, Republicans could continue their course, trying to limit ballot access, thereby alienating more of the electorate and ensuring that Libertarian votes can’t also be Republican votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture political challengers

Opposites for Independence

Could any two men be more different than John Adams and Thomas Jefferson? And yet, I doubt if the United States would exist were it not for both. Somehow, they worked together when it counted. And worked against each other, when it seemed necessary.

Yet they respected each other (in their different ways), and before the end, after a long estrangement, became close friends.Thomas Jefferson

The story is well known: on his deathbed on July 4, 1826, Adams whispered, “Thomas Jefferson survives!” He was wrong. Jefferson had died earlier that day, on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Adams was also wrong about Independence Day. On July 2, 1776, after the Lee Resolution for independence passed the Continental Congress, he wrote that “the second day of July” would become the day of “a great anniversary festival.” But “by 1777,” Steve Tally noted in Bland Ambition, his jovial history of the vice presidency, “people were already celebrating the Fourth of July.”

John AdamsBut give him his due: it was Adams who insisted that Jefferson write the Declaration, and it was indeed its words — especially that of its “mission statement” preamble — that resonate almost universally to this day. And gave birth to the annual festivities.

Adams, Tally tells us, was “short, round, peevish, a loudmouth, and frequently a bore.” Jefferson, on the other hand, was tall, handsome, polite, and much more popular. And a much better writer. Which is why he was given his great job, to produce the Declaration.

Great writer or no, it’s not as if the tall redhead’s initial draft was acceptable as it flowed from the pen. Adams, Franklin, and the whole congress got in on the editing job. “Jefferson liked to recall that his document survived further [extensive] editing,” Tally explains, “because of the meeting hall’s proximity to a livery stable.” Still, it’s obvious that Jefferson wasn’t the only genius in the room, and that without Adams’s tireless work, independence might not have gotten off the ground.Declaration of Independence

The later history of both men, in service to the country they helped found, is riddled with ambiguities and even horrible moral and political lapses. Adams was the kind of politician who not only opposed term limits, but opposed terms: he thought men raised to office should be kept there forever. Jefferson leaned not merely the other direction, but flirted with the notion of a revolution every generation.

I adhere to the anti-federalist slogan of their day, “that where annual elections end, tyranny begins.”

Between the two extremes of these two great men, somehow, the republic survived. And thrived. Their correspondence is a mine of great wisdom, their biographies well worth reading.

Most of all, their legacy — of July 2 and July 4, 1776, and the universal rights of man — remains worth fighting for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Brat Beats Cantor

Yesterday, House Majority Eric Cantor (R-Va.) received a solid thumping by Tea Party-supported Dave Brat in Virginia’s Republican Party primary.

That bounce in my step today? Not schadenfreude.

Americans have always loved the underdog, and certainly Brat qualified as one: Cantor was expected to crush his underfunded challenger. Slate’s Dave Weigel reported that the Cantor campaign “spent nearly $1 million in the final weeks, while Brat struggled to spend six figures.”Dave Brat and Eric Cantor

Brat, a Randolph Macon College economics professor, says he’s “a free-market guy,” and proudly admits, “I do want to scale down Washington, DC.” He also signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge and dubbed himself “Cantor’s term-limit.”

By a dozen percentage points, no less.

Brat hammered Cantor on the immigration issue — on which I side with neither Brat nor Cantor — but the defeat of this major congressional leader was about far more than that single issue. It was about leadership and trust . . . or the lack thereof.

Our so-called leaders aren’t leading.

And the Republican grassroots refuse to blindly follow.

Well-known conservative activist Brent Bozell, head of ForAmerica, a group that attacked Cantor, called the upset “an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment,” adding, “The grassroots is in revolt and marching.”

Several TV talking heads spoke about the fear the Republican congressional leadership has of its own party’s rank-and-file. Great! I hope Republicans will keep GOP politicians scared. And Democrats will do the same with theirs. And Libertarians and Greens will help stir the caldron.

This is the biggest upset since those crazy term limits folks took out House Speaker Tom Foley back in 1994.

And I feel fine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture political challengers

The Next Coalition

Can the American people squeeze out the middle . . . like popping the world’s biggest zit?

Ralph Nader thinks the answer is Yes, if by “the middle” we mean the political center, where the Republican and Democratic Party higher-ups want to be, and where most folks in Congress find themselves.Unstoppable, by Ralph Nader

Huge swaths of the American people, he says, are ready for some big changes. But the ruling insider class stands in the way.

What is needed? A coalition of progressives and libertarians and other independents willing to work together on issues like

  • initiative and referendum rights in every state and locality;
  • stricter ethical standards for representatives;
  • an end to bailouts of businesses and investors;
  • a rational attack on the eternal and sumptuous giveaways to contractors for the Pentagon; and much more.

Nader thinks a coalition like this is, as the title of his book has it, “Unstoppable.”

His book hasn’t been getting the attention it deserves. (Even from me: I’m at Disney World as I write this, and somehow reading of books hasn’t exactly taken over my schedule.) Nader, one of the most influential activists in American history, has hit a nerve, but not a lot of media outlets. I’m told he did chat with the folks on Fox Business News’s The Independents, but he could use more readers and more listeners.

Interestingly, Nader tips his hat to my day-job outfit, Citizens in Charge, as “already at work” doing what needs getting done, putting citizens (not well-connected businesses and pressure groups) at the center of the government.

By working for greater ballot access and initiative rights everywhere.

So, join us. (And I promise: no more pimple-popping metaphors.)

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights political challengers

Maximum Political Freedom

Freedom battles tyranny across the globe, with the right to speak out politically essential for freedom to prevail.

A decision handed down this week by U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa, in a case brought by Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, inspires much hope to protect speech and prevent tyranny here in America.

O’Keefe, the group and “all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present” were targeted by the Milwaukee County District Attorney and others in a bizarre, secretive politically-motivated criminal investigation. Armed agents raided homes at dawn, seizing computers, mailing lists, files, etc.

O’Keefe and conservative state leaders were then slapped with subpoenas (demanding all their documents) and a gag order. This effectively silenced them from talking about the investigation. Under the circumstances, these groups found themselves unable to raise funds or engage in political activity since.

The thrust of the case against them was the mere assertion that spending on TV ads about collective bargaining or other issues was campaign spending for Governor Scott Walker. Judge Randa found no evidence of express advocacy for Walker and, therefore, no lawful basis for the outrageous persecution.

“The plaintiffs have been shut out of the political process merely by association with conservative politicians,” his decision read, adding a warning that, historically, “attempts to purify the public square lead to places like the Guillotine and the Gulag.”

O’Keefe’s Wisconsin Club for Growth spends what some call “dark money” — donors are not disclosed — but the judge explained that our constitutional system cherishes and protects the free discussion of political ideas by groups like O’Keefe’s as possibly “the best way . . . to address problems of political corruption.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
obituary political challengers

Remembering a Pioneer

Who was the first woman to receive an Electoral College vote?

Not the one you are probably thinking of — Geraldine Anne Ferraro (1935-2011).

The answer is: Theodora Nathan, listed on the ballots of Colorado and Washington State in 1972 as Tonie Nathan. She ran as the first Vice Presidential candidate for the fledgling Libertarian Party. She didn’t receive many votes — the party had barely been formed. But she got that one Electoral College vote because a Virginia state elector, Roger MacBride, was so disgusted by President Nixon and his wage and price controls (everybody has a tipping point) that he went renegade.

I bring this up because of sad news: Tonie Nathan died yesterday, age 91.

I knew her, having served with her on the Libertarian National Committee back in the 1980s. (See a recent picture of her, with former party chair Alicia Clark and me, at the 2012 Libertarian National Convention.) Tonie was a dynamo: sharp, kind, hard-working, organized, a people person committed to making a difference.

Her run to unseat Senator Bob Packwood (R-Oregon) in 1980 was memorable for the three televised debates with her major party opponents. In the first of them, all the major papers dubbed her the winner, one of which headlined her as having “skewered” her opponents.

Odd fact: She received eleven times more votes in her senatorial race than in her “nationwide” campaign.

I’ve noticed fewer debates with Libertarian candidates in them, since. I think it might be the result of fear of a Nathanesque “skewering.”

Her place in history should be more widely acknowledged.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers term limits

Land of Limited Terms

It’s baaaaaack.

The issue that won’t go away: Term limits.

I predict that Bruce Rauner, a businessman who has never before held public office, will win the GOP nomination as a result of today’s Illinois Republican Party Primary for Governor, besting three career politicians sporting 60-plus years in office, total.

I’m no soothsayer; Rauner leads in the polls. The key issue driving support for him is his support for term limits.

“Term limits should apply to all politicians,” he proclaims in a TV spot, “and not just when they go to jail.”

It’s not just a cute line. Four of Illinois’ last seven governors have ended up in prison . . . so have a number of congressmen representing [sic] the Land of Lincoln.

Rauner’s term limits advocacy includes actual deeds. He is helping, financially and organizationally, to gather half-a-million voter signatures on a petition to place a constitutional amendment imposing eight-year term limits on state legislators before the electorate this November.

Polls show a whopping 79 percent of Illinois voters favor those term limits.

Still, powerful folks amongst the state’s other 21 percent are not pleased by Rauner, who has also called for reforming Illinois’ pension systems, ranked worst funded in the nation. Public employee unions funded a month-long TV ad blitz making baseless charges against the businessman.

With incumbent Governor Pat Quinn facing no significant opposition in the Democratic Primary, the unions are also organizing Democrats to crossover to vote for State Sen. Kirk Dillard in the Republican Primary.

But I think Dillard, the 20-year incumbent Republican officeholder, will be no match for the guy who supports term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

One Man Walkout

A famous poem ends “‘You lie,’ he cried, And ran on.” One of the better moments of modern televised State of the Union addresses was when a lowly member of Congress had the audacity to shout “You lie!” after a controversial immigration point.

Last night, Representative Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) did not run or shout, but merely walked out of the room.

Months ago, Stockman had handed out a book to each member of the august two-branched body he serves in, a book entitled Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.

What’s his beef with the president?

Tonight I left early after hearing how the President is further abusing his Constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly-defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers.

Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.

Stockman is not alleging that all executive orders are dangerous or unlawful — just that some are indeed unconstitutionally usurping legislative powers.

The Prez certainly did imply that he was going to use them beyond their place in the Executive Branch, that is, instead of legislation from the Legislative Branch. Every Congressman should be concerned.

On the bright side, President Obama may be just blowing smoke. He’s just puttin’ on a show to appear more powerful.

On the dark side, a lot of people applauded. The idea of a leader with unilateral power, the culture of dictatorship, is never far enough away. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture political challengers

Is the Tea Party Dead?

Newspapermen used to keep files on major figures, for that inevitable day when the newsworthies shuffle off that final coil. Timely obituaries don’t just “happen.”

Heedless of the danger of a premature obit, today’s journalists seem always ready with an autopsy, even before the corpse cools.

Every few years we endure talk of the death of a major political party. Journalists love this sort of speculation. And apparently it’s so forgettable that it never really sticks to the journalists who trotted out the last false prophecy. In the real world, sociologists study what happens to cults “When Prophecies Fail”; in journalism, the eternal cranking out of copy goes on as if nothing happened.

The Last Democrat, a book produced at the height of the Bill Clinton scandals, argued that Americans would never again elect a Democratic president — Americans, you see, had finally wised up, given up on the old redistributionist racket. Wishful thinking.

The book should be prominently placed on every would-be prophet’s desk. A cautionary title.

Today, the old political rackets have ratcheted up, and Democrats are riding high. Sort of.

So now, after Tuesday’s elections, we hear talk of the death of the Tea Party.

A possibility? Yes. But remember: it was never a real party, and it was never about tea. It was (as near as I could make out) about responsibility. In government.

I can’t see how that idea will ever go out of style.

Though how it will win, that’s harder to envision.

And whether the name will stick with the idea, that’s another matter, too. Tea and revolutions, like obituaries, must be prepared in advance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Losing with Obamacare

Democrats and their many shills in the major media decry Republican intransigence and “absolutism” on the “settled matter” (un)popularly known as Obamacare. Yesterday, rather than give an inch to the House Republicans they accuse of intransigence, Senate Democrats voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, including their own special exemption from it.

The House majority had been demanding the defunding of Obamacare as the price for keeping the government funded overall, but dropped that demand when Senate Democrats shook their heads No. Perhaps Republicans backpedalled because they surmised that they, not Democrats, would likely be blamed for the shut-down . . . Sen. Ted Cruz’s valiant efforts to re-define the debate notwithstanding.

Then Republicans downshifted, demanding a one-year delay in the implementation of Obamacare — granting to regular citizens, as Cruz puts it, the same solicitude Democrats have shown to big corporations — plus the deletion of a widely unpopular tax on medical devices and the repossession of Congress’s “Get-Out-of-Obamacare-Free” card.

Senate Democrats took less than half an hour to thumb their noses at the House, nixing all three provisions and leaving the federal government liable to partial shut-down. Obamacare, at least for the un-politically-connected, starts in earnest today!

Comedian Bill Maher is not alone in chiding Republicans for “refusing to admit” they “lost.”

Republicans, for their part, predict utter devastation from the reform bill’s implementation, and don’t see why the country should suffer from the Democrats’ intransigence.

If Tea Party-inclined Republicans do lose this battle and Obamacare’s bad results do pile up — increasing unemployment and depression, skyrocketing insurance rates, diminished private medical insurance rolls — would the Democrats concede that they’ve lost?

Or would they continue to think they’ve won?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.