TGIF: That Was the Election that Was

One can be overjoyed by the repudiation of a candidate without being pleased with the opposing candidate's victory. This election is an occasion for that reaction. An American (or anyone actually) is perfectly justified in taking pleasure in Kamala Harris's humiliating defeat while anguishing over the intemperate Donald Trump's impressive win. As I like to say, every election has good and bad news: the losers lost but the winners won. That's where I am today if anyone cares to know.

I rejoice at the defeat of Harris and virtually all that she stands for, while also realizing that some of the grounds for that defeat are themselves to be repudiated. Most Trump voters seemed to have had "the economy" uppermost in mind, with immigration a distant second. That's sort of good news, except that most people think tariffs are a big solution for our economic woes. (In fact, there's no "economy." There are only cooperative interacting individuals deploying material factors and human effort to improve their conditions.)

Trump's defects have been widely discussed here and elsewhere. No need to rehearse them now. (As Yogi Berra said pre-internet, "You could look it up.")

One of Harris's problems was that while there was no there there, she was likely surrounded by the condescending woke set whom she would have wanted to please. This held the potential for outright violations of freedom and impediments to advancing prosperity. It may well have aggravated tensions between people of different skin tones and ethnicities—something no advocate of social cooperation through the market economy should take lightly. We must be wary of those who seek to undermine domestic peace, especially when the cause is not justice, but trivial natal characteristics (like where your parents were born). (For an account of the dangers of a Harris administration, see Gene Healy's "Fear and Loathing at the Ballot Box.")

Trump was called Hitler, a Nazi, and a fascist, which was not only ill-defined and absurd but malicious. The people who trafficked in such charges, including the top of the Democratic ticket, deserved to lose just for using such tactics. Warnings that he would establish a dictatorship were hollow and not really believed by many who issued the warnings. Remember that a partly Democratically controlled Congress reauthorized horrendous surveillance powers for this "worse than Hitler" figure during his first term. How are we to explain that? Politics, that's how.

We have to discount much of Trump's flamboyant rhetoric because we know that he loves to play to his core audience, which in turn loves to see the woke progressives sent into rage on MSNBC, CNN, etc. His core audience called on candidate Trump in 2016 to "lock her up," meaning his rival, Hillary Clinton. Did his Justice Department bring a case against her? No, it didn't. He didn't try to lock her up.

When Trump partisan Sean Hannity asked him during the latest campaign if he would abuse his power to retaliate against his enemies, he smiled and said he would, but only on day one. What would he do? "Seal the border" and "drill, baby, drill" for oil. When Hannity said, "That's not retribution," Trump ignored him and kept talking. That did not keep his opponents from "reporting" that he said he would be a dictator on day one and beyond and would punish his opponents. The Democrats' implicit message all season seemed to be this: "He's really not so bad, so we have to make up stuff."

I'm not defending his "seal the border" promise or his promise to round up and deport millions of people for lacking government permission papers. Those would be terribly unjust policies. Tragically, however, a president probably has decades-old congressionally delegated powers to do such things. So technically Trump wouldn't be acting like a dictator. The same is true for oil drilling. We don't know exactly what he means, but if he intends to free producers to bring more oil and gas to market, then yay! If he intends to direct an effort to create energy independence, then boo. We'll have to wait and see. The point is that any president would probably already have congressionally authorized powers to loosen restraints on oil producers. His promise does not imply dictatorship.

But let's consider the possibility further. Would there be no checks on his power if Trump tried to be a dictator? Would the military obey orders to arrest, say, Supreme Court justices or recalcitrant members of Congress? Would the courts support him? Unlikely. How would he enforce orders no one obeyed? He'll have no guns.

America still has a legacy of liberalism in the best sense, which includes deep-seated attitudes about government power, as well as an independent judiciary and a Constitution-bound military. This limits what even a dictatorial-minded president could get away with in America. In a sense, it really can't happen here. At least it's highly unlikely compared to other places without our traditions.

My old friend the historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, who has thought much about the role of ideology in society, used to say that if a Soviet ruler had magically appeared as the president of the United States, he could not have ruled in the Soviet style. Likewise, if a libertarian had magically become the head of the Soviet government, he could not have governed like Ron Paul would have. History and tradition—ideology—would have prevented it. The result is a sturdy, albeit not indestructible set of taboos.

Even Trump is probably not blind to what is unique about the American liberal legacy (including freedom of enterprise) and what makes for legitimacy. Ideas, not force, rule the world, Hummel says. "Ideas ultimately determine in which direction [people] wield their weapons or whether they wield them at all," he writes.

This does not mean we will be able to sleep soundly from Jan. 20, 2025, through 2028. Guarantees are not to be found in such things. But we need not run around like our hair is on fire. I question the claim that Trump will be a dangerous freer agent in his second term. As self-centered as Trump is, he will surely have an eye on the mid-terms; he won't want to lose the House or Senate in 2026. Moreover, he won't want to hamper J. D. Vance or another would-be successor for 2028. He won't be free to offend those who still are connected to America's pro-freedom legacy.

In foreign affairs, if Trump means to get and keep out of other people's conflicts, then good. But he gives us no reason for confidence. Look at his first term. Look at his unwavering support for Israel's violence against the Palestinians. (No defense of the brutal Hamas is hereby implied.) Look at his belligerence toward Iran. Look at his acceptance of the expansion of NATO. To state the obvious, Donald Trump is no Richard Cobden, even if we ignore the tariffs, which we cannot do.

So I'm not optimistic about foreign policy, though Harris would have been worse. (Did she push her boss to reinstate the nuclear deal with Iran that Trump canceled? We have no evidence of that.)

None of this is amenable to mathematical or scientific proof. How could it be? We're talking about the always-uncertain future and individuals who have free will. On this day, however, this is how I see it. It seems reasonable

Then again, what the hell do I know?

TGIF: Election Reflections

The history of the human race is one long story of attempts by certain persons and classes to obtain control of the power of the State, so as to win earthly gratifications at the expense of others.

--William Graham Sumner, 1883

For advocates of individual liberty, this has got to be the most depressing election in many years. (Well, at least since 2020, the most depressing election since 2016.) Full, true, laissez-faire liberalism is far from public discussion. Kamala Harris ("I'm smart and I care"), the mush-mouthed empty suit, and Donald Trump ("I'm Trump!"), the narcissistic, militantly nationalist demagogic windbag, both threaten what remains of Americans' liberty.

No one can confidently say which is the bigger threat. Their styles differ, but that cannot camouflage the danger each represents. This may be availability bias speaking, but I am not so sure. There has been no joy for liberalism this season.

The palpable lesson of nearly everything we see in politics is that freedom and prosperity are at risk when the government can do almost anything a majority or an influential minority wants—when the idea of constitutional constraint is treated as old-fashioned. It matters little whether those who get their hands on such power come from the "left" or the "right," ideologically incoherent terms signifying little but tribal membership.

'Nuff Said

Foreign Interference

People are being told to be alarmed about alleged foreign interference in the upcoming presidential election. Maybe they should be understanding rather than alarmed. The U.S. government conducts a wide-ranging interventionist foreign policy, which can substantially affect other countries. That has included frequent interference in elections and other political operations. So why wouldn't the governments there not only take an interest in U.S. elections but also perhaps attempt to exercise some influence over the voters? Much is at stake militarily and economically.

American  politicians used to say, "Politics stops at the water's edge." However, after America had turned into an empire, Felix Morley, the classical liberal critic of U.S. foreign intervention, commented that politics stops at the water's edge only when policy stops at the water's edge, which it no longer did. 

If we want foreign countries to ignore American elections, the U.S. government should go back to ignoring foreign countries. End the foreign entanglements! Americans should be free to trade with anyone, but the government should pull back to the water's edge—and much further.

TGIF: The Russians Are Coming? The Russians Are Coming?

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

―H. L. Mencken, In Defense of Women

It is in Mencken's spirit that I would size up this announcement from the U.S. Justice Department, titled "Justice Department Disrupts Covert Russian Government-Sponsored Foreign Malign Influence Operation Targeting Audiences in the United States and Elsewhere":

The Justice Department today announced the ongoing seizure of 32 internet domains used in Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns colloquially referred to as “Doppelganger,” in violation of U.S. money laundering and criminal trademark laws. As alleged in an unsealed affidavit, ... Russian companies..., operating under the direction and control of the Russian Presidential Administration, ... used these domains, among others, to covertly spread Russian government propaganda with the aim of reducing international support for Ukraine, bolstering pro-Russian policies and interests, and influencing voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election.

The release quoted FBI Director Christopher Wray: “Companies operating at the direction of the Russian government created websites to trick Americans into unwittingly consuming Russian propaganda. By seizing these websites, the FBI is making clear to the world what they are, Russian attempts to interfere in our elections and influence our society."

So once again a foreign power—usually Russia—is allegedly trying to manipulate the American people with disinformation as a presidential election is coming on. How dare the Russians do this? Political manipulation is allowed only to certain anointed Americans. It's a position of privilege. So the government will protect us from "consuming" Russian propaganda without knowing it. We're too stupid to check claims out for ourselves when they sound fishy—even when they come from so-called legitimate" sources. (Point of information: are Russians incapable of saying anything accurate worth hearing? Just asking.)

Before we get all primed for nuclear war, let's take a deep breath. Maybe it would help to picture a scene that may or may not have occurred in the Kremlin.

Picture President Vladimir Putin (not a guy I'd ever hang with) summoning a top aide to his office. "Sergei, I have a great idea," he might say this trusted aid. "Here's $10 million. I want you to launder it, then have some American-looking company pass the money to big-time American internet influencers. But make sure the money goes to people who are already saying what we want them to say. No sense wasting it on people who don't like us. Pay these friendly guys to post propaganda favorable videos."

Putin might have gone on: "What we want to do is capitalize—pardon expression, comrade—on the American sport of arguing about politics and culture. Muhahahahahaha! Yes, I know, America is severely divided over more issues than I can name. But it's not divided nearly enough for our purposes! We can do better, da? This will help us in many ways, primarily by disillusioning Americans about Ukraine. That would be good, nyet?"

After hearing Putin, Sergei might have laughed under his breath and agreed to oversee the project. Why might he have laughed? Because he might have been thinking, "Do we need to pay even a ruble on polarizing America? What a waste of money! America is doing just fine polarizing itself. They don't need our help. And $10 million? Is he kidding? That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Americans spend bitterly promoting their views on public issues. Is this the Putin who's cracked up to be so foxy? Sheesh! Maybe I should be president."

According to the government's indictment:

Many of the videos published by U.S. Company-I contain commentary on events and issues in the United States, such as immigration, inflation, and other topics related to domestic and foreign policy While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the Government of Russia's interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Government of Russia interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

Immigration, inflation, and other topics related to domestic and foreign policy? Are we to believe that Russian officials think they need to amplify divisions in America? How much more amplified can they get? And what about the Justice Department's acknowledgment that "the views expressed in the videos are not uniform"? What are we being asked to get upset about?

J. D. Tuccille writing at Reason points out:

Translated Russian documents [provided by the Justice Department] outlining a "guerilla media campaign in the United States" caution their intended audience that "in the United States there are no pro-Russian and/or pro-Putin mainstream politicians or sufficiently large numbers of influencers and voters. There is no point of justifying Russia and no one to justify it to." [Emphasis added—SR] The campaign was meant to exploit "the high level of polarization of American society" by paying commentators to say things they were already saying.

It's not clear they got a lot of mileage from that program.

That's an understatement, I'd say. But Putin's objective (if he was behind this) might simply have been to upset American officials and the public. Here's a suggestion: let's not get upset. Read the rest of Tuccille's article for more particulars about the effectiveness of meddling and about the U.S. government's own sorry decades-long record of manipulating other countries' political systems. Then remember the advice about stones and glass houses.

"So, take reports of Russian interference in American elections with a grain of salt," Tuccille advises, "knowing that Putin is paying Americans to say what they already believe, and the U.S. does the same in other countries. Importantly, none of that interference prevents you from making your own decisions."

I have plenty of criticism of democracy, as readers know, but I wonder: is America so fragile? Or is this one of Mencken's hobgoblins? If so, who benefits?

TGIF: What Government Has Wrought

Imagine two candidates for president, and ask yourself who is more likely to win.

Candidate A observes that people are facing generally rising prices. Their total at the supermarket checkout is higher than last year. Filling up the car at the gas station takes a bigger bite out of the budget. Everything the kids need seems costlier. Besides all that, the prospect of buying a home or moving to a larger apartment looks grim—too expensive.

Responding to this situation, Candidate A launches a campaign promising to defend the middle class and other working people against "corporate greed." Specifically, he proposes an expanded child tax credit, a crackdown on "price gouging," and down-payment subsidies to first-time home buyers. Targeted tax credits to homebuilders and small businesses are among the promises. (These and other tax credits are called "refundable," which means qualifying people who pay little or no taxes have their nonexistent tax payments refunded to them—a logical impossibility.)

Candidate B, not your typical frontman for a mass-marketing campaign, sees the same hardships as Candidate A, but he has a different message. He pledges to move heaven and earth to repeal taxes on savings, investment, and business, including the capital-gains tax and the corporate income tax. He explains that taxes on savings, investments, and enterprises are dishonest because businesses don't pay taxes; they collect them—from workers, customers, and corporate shareholders. Such taxes constitute double and even triple taxation. (See Roy Cordato's "Corporations Should Pay Higher Taxes?" and "Taxing Investment." ) He also promises to work to abolish regulation on business, which raises production costs, hikes prices, and reduces the supply and variety of consumer products.

The candidate unabashedly promotes his plan in the name of economic growth and prosperity for everyone. He does so because he believes that the only way for everyone to get rich(er) is for production to expand, for labor to become more productive, and for real prices to fall through increased supplies. That requires saving and investment, that is, deferred consumption. Anything that discourages savings is bad, he says. He favors prosperity, he says, over income equality, which is a recipe for poverty.

The candidate proposes to accommodate the lost revenue by pushing Congress to cut spending all through the budget. He also calls on the governors, county executives, and mayors to eliminate the barriers to home and apartment construction, including zoning, because, he notes, high housing prices are caused by politically restricted supply. This is especially egregious where some of the most lucrative jobs are. However, since housing is artificially scarce, many people can't move to where the best jobs are because they're priced out of the housing market. He also promises to get rid of any federal regulations that keep the housing supply from meeting the demand.

In general, Candidate B explains to voters that increased consumption requires increased production (not vice versa) and that bureaucracy discourages savings and raises costs and prices. The government is not good at creating real wealth; it is a consumer and engine of transfer, not a producer.

Who's likely to win the election? The one who promises direct help to middle- and working-class consumers or the one who promises to help them indirectly by freeing up entrepreneurship and free enterprise?

Does anyone doubt who, other things equal, would prevail? Candidate A would be widely portrayed as a champion of the people, a hero bursting with compassion and courage to take on special interests. Candidate B would be portrayed as a shill for Big Business and Wall Street, who favors having all the wealth go to the top 20 or even 1 percent, while the rest of America gets poorer and poorer. (Although that is the opposite of what's been happening for many decades.)

In other words, the candidate who understands how the free-enterprise system tends to work when left unmolested by politicians and bureaucrats will be scorned as an enemy of progress. Meanwhile, the candidate who either is ignorant of economics or engages in demagoguery will be lifted on people's shoulders and carried into the White House.

That's what a representative democratic republic produces. The result is a total national debt—$35 trillion and change—larger than GDP—almost $29 trillion—not counting the unfunded liabilities of the so-called entitlement programs. Interest paid on the debt will be about $900 billion this fiscal year, which ends September 30. Annual budget deficits have hit $2 trillion, which the government covers by selling bonds, which in turn the Fed (short for Federal Inflation Generator) buys up, creating money out of thin electrons. Inflating the money supply then raises prices generally as more dollars chase the same amount of goods, imposing hardship on regular people. A fiscal crisis looms.

If this tale of two candidates does not make you question the utility of government, what would?

To Persuade, Speak the Language

To persuade people to the freedom philosophy we must speak in the vernacular. In election seasons, that entails relating ideas to candidates -- not only unacceptable ones but also superior ones when they are present. The goal is freedom through persuasion, not merely the self-gratification of purity.

Latest Free Association Webinar: Voting, Democracy, and Other Ills

The Election

What I have to say about the presidential election I said here. So I will leave it at that.

I do wish to recognize four good outcomes: the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine and Maryland. Of course, these are not pure libertarian solutions--none of these things should require the voters' approval--but some people in those states will be freer as a result of the election.

Send a Message: Don’t Vote in November

Only a super low turnout at the polls would send a message that we are fed up. So stop agonizing over whom to vote for, and resolve not to vote. (Your vote certainly will not decide the election under any circumstances.)

Stop playing their game. Send a real message.

Don’t Vote on Nov. 6!

Don't Hold Your Breath for the Spending Cuts

Republicans last night made it clear that there will be no spending cuts to write home about. Various GOP members of Congress said they would like an across-the-board cut in "discretionary spending." This is spending that is explicitly authorized each year, as opposed to so-called mandatory (entitlement) spending that is on automatic pilot and whose level depends on how many people become eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps.

Discretionary spending constitutes just one-third of the federal budget, so the Republican sights are fixed on only that much spending ... except that the party vows not to touch military and "homeland security" spending.

With so much spending off limits, the potential for cuts is not great.

Therefore I ask: Except for those expecting new patronage and consulting jobs, why is anyone excited about last night's election results?

Shameful

The foreign occupations and threats to civil liberties played no role in the elections. That's a disgrace.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.3

Op-Ed: Hypocrisy’s Coming Election-Day Triumph

By nearly all accounts, Republicans are poised for a big win, even by historical midterm standards, in the November 2 congressional elections. Many candidates backed by the Tea Party should have a big day.

But what will these victories mean for people who are alarmed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state? Not much, I’m sorry to say.

Read the rest of my op-ed here.

The Day After

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Depressing Day

Not only because one of those presumptuous scoundrels will fulfill his dream of being "commander in chief," but because the airwaves and cable channels are rife with media talking heads discharging their self-appointed duty of re-legitimizing the state. The last few days especially have been devoted less to partisanship than to praise of both "courageous" candidates for their service and dedication. In the end, for these windbag commentators what counts most is the process, i.e., the state's continued legitimacy. Nothing disturbs them more than discussion that undermines The Consensus. All underhanded campaigning can be forgiven in light of the larger mission, the collective choosing of a Leader, which can be used ultimately to absolve the state of its crimes. Nothing, therefore, is more sacred than the ritual of voting. Or so the media talkers would have us believe, as they rhapsodize about "caring" and "participation." In truth, getting out the vote is a way to get everyone's hands dirty enough that they can't regard the state as an external villain, an occupying power.

Anyone who points out that this process is based on fraud and coercion would be dismissed as a cynic or a nihilist. But no need to worry. No one who would point this out will be invited to comment in the first place. Can't have the purity of the moment sullied by the truth. The media are safe for Peggy Noonan, David Gergen, and the rest of the state's cheerleaders. No one will say what should already be obvious to any thinking person: the electoral process is a distraction, a massive effort in misdirection to keep our minds off what is really going on. The illusion of popular power hides the fact that real power is securely beyond the people's reach.

"If voting could change things, it would be against the law." No wiser words ever graced a wall.

The Crazy Arithmetic of Voting

The hoopla over Super Tuesday reminded me of an essay I read long ago by Bruno Leoni (1913-1967), an Italian legal scholar and great champion of liberty. I've been meaning to discuss the many important themes in his book, Freedom and the Law (expanded third edition), and will surely return to it in the near future. But for now I'll focus on the final chapter, "Voting Versus the Market."

The rest of this week's TGIF, "The Crazy Arithmetic of Voting," is at the Foundation for Economic Education website.

Go, Obama!

Since the presidential campaign began, I have felt myself favoring Obama over Clinton. I wasn't exactly sure why. Yes, Obama has opposed the Iraq war all along, while Clinton voted for it and would keep troops there. But Obama's foreign policy is distinctly not noninterventionist. He's ready to invade Pakistan with or without Musharraf's permission. (I'm against it either way.) And he obviously does not plan to withdraw from the Middle East. Domestically, I can't see any important distinction between him and Clinton.

So it may come down to more ethereal things. Unlike Obama, Clinton acts like a woman driven by power lust. (Obama may lust for power too, but he doesn't come across that way.) Clinton displayed this the day after she humiliatingly lost Iowa. "I am ready to lead!" she shouted to her supporters.

Yes, that is the problem.

The "Debate"

Antiwar libertarians (in one sense that's redundant; in another it's not) are upset that Ron Paul is getting such short shrift from the news media following his participation in the Republican "debate." This was inevitable. In fact, the very format of the "debate" guaranteed that only the anointed top-tier candidates would get any respect. I use quote marks around "debate" because it was not a debate. It was a joint softball news conference with unequally allocated time. There were barely any follow-up questions, and the candidates were not permitted to question each other. What kind of debate is that?

Moreover, with ten candidates on the stage, we knew going in there would be no time for any positions to be developed. The whole thing was a joke, more precisely, a media event that MSNBC could milk for ratings.

If that network (and the others) were serious about informing people about who was running for these nominations, they would do, let's say, one-hour interviews with each candidate -- one on one. But no, for a couple of reasons they won't do that. First, they know the ratings would be too small to justify the time. How many people will tune it for ten long interviews?

Second, that format would require that "minor" candidates -- such as Ron Paul, an antiwar Republican who thereby doesn't fit most people's worldview -- would have to be given equal time.

So that's why we were stuck with the joke we saw the other night. I despise what most people call "democracy." And so do the television news people. But at least I admit it. I don't play Chris Matthews's game and pretend to be gaga about the process.

Speaking of Chris Matthews, who says he was against the Iraq was from the start: why does he say the troops are serving "their country." If the war is against the interests of most Americans, which Matthews says he believes, they can't be serving the country. At most they are serving the president. (I e-mailed this to Matthews. So far no answer.)