Tag: politics

Categories
partisanship Second Amendment rights

The Word Is

Inigo Montoya

“You keep using that word,” said Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

He might as well have been talking to David Hogg — not Vizaini — and young Hogg’s March For Our Lives gun control advocacy group. 

The word?

Partisan.

“On Wednesday,” writes Christian Britschgi at Reason, “the group released its Peace Plan for a Safer America with the ambitious goal of reducing gun deaths and injuries by 50 percent in 10 years.”

Among the issues their plan — a sort of “Gun New deal” — aims to tackle is the Supreme Court’s make-​up of justices who support a common sense reading of the Second Amendment, which Hogg & Co. characterize as the result of “partisan political influence and interference.”

Favoring the right to bear arms or opposing socialized medicine isn’t “partisan” any more than favoring gun control and “Medicare for all.” We use the word “partisan” when members of parties behave in ways that align with their respective parties for little reason other than power, or when they cannot muster or even try for bipartisan support for their legislation.

When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama pushed through “Obamacare” without one Republican vote, that was partisan only because the Democrats could not muster any support across the aisle, quite astounding for a major new program.

Regarding the Supreme Court, we should remember that the standard for judgment is neither party nor policy, but constitutional law.

March for Our Lives wants a “national conversation” on restructuring the Supreme Court.

A better conversation would deal with actual partisan perversity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Inigo Montoya

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

The Grateful President

Donald Trump, Trump, politics, Saudi Arabia,

What are you thankful for?

Surely you were asked over Thanksgiving by friends or relatives — just as the president was by reporters. No doubt you had more social grace than to launch into a full-​throated self-endorsement.

In his defense, President Trump first answered, “For having a great family,” before quickly pivoting to “and for having made a tremendous difference in this country.… This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it.”

Yes, hard to believe.

Thankful for Saudi Arabia? The Donald is. Oil prices are down.

Controversially, Trump also decided that Saudi Arabia has suffered enough for their grisly state murder of Washington Post contributor Jamaal Khashoggi. U.S. sanctions have indeed been firmly placed on 17 Saudis accused of involvement in the murder, but no action taken against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA “assesses” was “likely responsible.” 

“It’s a very complex situation,” the president told reporters. “It is what it is.

“We’re not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in orders and let Russia, China and everybody else have them,” Trump continued. “It’s America first.”

“Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been transactional,” explained the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been about our larger goals in the region, not out of admiration for Saudi Arabia’s rule of law, human rights record, or anything else.”

“Transactional” is a pretty word for this foreign policy, with pretense about human rights or without.

How thankful should we be for that?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers Popular

Spoiler Season

libertarian, spoiler, porcupine, snake, politics

“Libertarians poll high enough to tip key races,” informs The Washington Times — citing contests for governorships and both houses of Congress.*

Libertarian Lucy Brenton is one example, running for U.S. Senate in Indiana. She grabbed 7 percent in a recent poll, greater than the margin between incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly, who had 44 percent, and Republican challenger Mike Braun with 40 percent. The Times says Brenton is just one of “a number of Libertarians whose poll numbers are high enough to more than account for the difference between Republicans and Democrats in key midterm races.” 

She had garnered 5.5 percent in 2016, when she sought the state’s other U.S. Senate seat. 

There is disagreement over whether Libertarians help or hurt Republicans. Most folks suspect that Libertarians take votes away from Republicans, but polling appears to show Libertarians snagging more otherwise Democrat-​inclined voters.

No matter. As often discussed here, enacting Ranked Choice Voting is the rational institutional solution to the so-​called spoiler effect Libertarians present. It’s a win-​win for both so-​called major and minor political parties. 

“Libertarians bristle at the term ‘spoiler,’” the newspaper notes, “saying it’s a belittling term for a party that presents a viable option to voters.”

Which brings me to a second solution to Libertarians luring away your voters. Steal their issues. Take them and make them your own.

There’s no law against it.

No reform required.

“Libertarians are running against President Trump’s tariffs, immigration policy and record on spending …” explains The Times, and “are embracing … less taxation as well as marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform and ending the war on drugs.”

Fresh elections. Happy voting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* It won’t change the outcome, but on Monday the Boston Globe endorsed Libertarian Dan Fishman for state auditor, writing: “An auditor without any partisan axes to grind could shake up the state.” That’s a different kind of spoiler.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
Common Sense free trade & free markets government transparency insider corruption local leaders media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Never Trust a Politician

salt, lies, politicians, politics, Donald Trump, truth, economy, trade

One of my more persistent critics on this site asked, last week, why I might believe anything the current president says — considering all the lies.

For reasons of decorum I won’t repeat his exact wording.

The odd thing about the comment was not the vulgarity, though (unfortunately). It was the idea that I was relying upon belief in Donald Trump’s veracity. The whole point of my commentary regarding Trump’s handling of trade and foreign policy was to read between some lines.

I try never to believe anything … er, everything … any politician says.

In Donald Trump’s case, though, there are lies and there are fictions and there are exaggerations. And corkers … and “negotiating gambits.” Separating the wheat from the chaff from the grindstone is not always easy.

Based not only on some of what he says, but also on results-​thus-​far from the EU negotiations, Trump’s idea of “fair trade” appears to be multilateral free trade. But he has chosen a bizarre method to get there: the threat of high-​tariff protectionism — which in the past has led to multilateral protectionism, not free trade.

Trump sees everything as a contest. Trade isn’t a contest as such. It’s win-​win. But trade negotiations are contests. And Trump’s game of chicken is dangerous.

Regarding foreign policy generally, though, he seems to be playing a more familiar game: we can outspend everybody. The recent increase in Pentagon spending is bigger than Russia’s annual military budget!

So, who pays? Americans in

  1. higher taxes and 
  2. the consequences of massive debt, as well as in
  3. the higher prices from his tariffs.

That’s awfully daring of him. For us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Photo from Max Pixel

 

Categories
ideological culture incumbents local leaders media and media people political challengers too much government

The Centre Cannot Hold

UK, British, politics, parties, centrist, left, right, partisan

The British may spell their words in funny ways, but their political problems do not seem all that foreign. Their left-​of-​center party has gone far left, Marxoid left; their right-​of-​center party has gone ultra-incompetent.

A healthy majority of Brits disapprove of both parties. So, no wonder many Brits are looking to create a new one.

A new centrist political party, no less.

Over at The Economist, the columnist writing under the name “Bagehot” (pronounced “badget”) predicts that this hope will be dashed, for at least three reasons:

First, Britain already has a centrist party, and it is not doing very well.

Second, there sure are a lot of contenders — 35 new parties have been formed just this year, including one called, with humble brag, “Sensible” — and all that competition fractionalizes the vote.

Third, the country sports the same system of vote counting and elections as America does, first-​past-​the-​post, which “is hard on startups.”

That last point is worth thinking about. In multi-​candidate races, the British-​American electoral system declares as winners those who obtain a bare plurality of votes — thus ignoring the preferences of those who vote for minor party candidates. This means that those who “waste” their votes not only hurt the candidacies they like as second-​best but also insulate the second-​best parties from those voters’ influence. So the parties become narrow-​minded and unhinged from an interested group of voters.

Bagehot thinks Britain’s centrists need to rethink, conjure up some new ideas. But what they need to do first is fix a system that prods political parties away from new ideas. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture judiciary media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest too much government

Post Blindfold

blind justice, unions, Supreme Court, polarization, politics

While the Supreme Court heard oral argument, Monday, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the court of public opinion focused not so much on the constitutionality of the law in question, i.e. justice, but instead on the partisan impact of the decision, i.e. politics. 

A Washington Post editorial advances the notion that the court was presented “with two questions. The first is the legal issue …” and the second “implicit” question is “how the court should conduct judicial review in a deeply polarized society.”

Plaintiff Mark Janus and his legal team are seeking an “extraordinary remedy in the context of the Supreme Court’s tumultuous recent history,” claims the Post.

But that history is not Mr. Janus’s.

Or the union’s.

Or even U.S. labor relations’.

The editors are talking about Washington’s bitter 2016 political fight. 

What does political polarization have to do with the facts or law of this case? Nothing. Except … what’s in peril is a system whereby government workers who do not wish to join a union are nonetheless forced to pay union dues.

So, if the Court nixes current law, AFSCME might wind up with fewer dues paying members … meaning less money for AFSCME’s political pet, the Democratic Party. 

And Democrats — now stuck with a conservative replacement for the late Justice Scalia — are left only with Obama’s pronouncement: “Elections have consequences.” 

And, embarrassingly, the Post’s bizarre case for “steering the court modestly down the middle of the road.”

A lady, blindfolded, holding scales and a sword symbolizes justice. That blindfold is not to avoid reading the law; it represents the imperative to ignore politics.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing