RedStateEclectic

Committed to Genuine Policymaking

Image credit.

 

In an editorial entitled Say no to 'lazy policymaking', the Omaha World-Herald portrays Senator Laura Ebke's efforts at maintaining the nature of policy formation as a duty pursued in the service of the public: 

Ebke, known at the State Capitol for her energetic committee work and well-informed comments during floor debates, said she wants to approach policymaking responsibly rather than having her stance dictated to her upfront according to a party’s or the governor’s particular needs.

Describing the pressure applied by partisans to Republican senators to vote a certain way, she wrote: “There is no discussion about ideas, and little negotiation — if a bill is controversial, the teams are supposed to split up, and everyone is expected to ‘fly right.’ I believe that’s lazy policymaking.”

She added: “Those who want my vote on a controversial issue will have to make the case based on solid reasoning — not on manufactured partisan hyperbole.”

Well-considered decision-making, she wrote, isn’t compatible with being “held hostage to partisan considerations.”

Plus, she noted, maintaining the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches is a fundamental doctrine in American government.

The source.

More Gary Johnson Endorsements

Image credit.

 

Hit & Run reports:

 

The Daily Beast reported yesterday that the vice chair of the Washington, D.C. Republican Party, Gary Teal, has announced that he's voting for the Libertarian and therefore resigning his post within the GOP. He was joined by three other D.C. delegates to the RNC:

Justin Dillon, Kris Hammond, and Peter Lee—who were wearing #NeverTrump buttons—spoke to The Daily Beast in the hallway of Quicken Loans Arena, just minutes after Donald Trump finished his keynote speech on Thursday night. "The RNC has bungled this nomination process by having bad rules," Teal said, referring to a controversy over nominating rules that caused chaos on the convention floor Monday. "And now at this convention, they've sacrificed integrity in favor of unity."

Prior to the convention, Rhode Island Republican State Sen. Dawson Hodgson, who is described as "prominent" by The Providence Journal, resigned as a delegate and pledged his support to Johnson. Other elected officials supporting Johnson include:

* Nebraska State Sen. Laura Ebke (R).

* Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, who was elected as a Republican but switched to Libertarian.

* New Hampshire State Rep. Max Abramson (R).

• Montana State Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer (at least as listed on the Johnson/Weld endorsements page and on Wikipedia; Schwaderer's June 28 Facebook post extolling the virtues of the L.P. ticket concludes with less decisive language: "I recommend that you hear what they have to say and genuinely take on board their perspective. In a cycle of vitriol I believe that this ticket deserves a slot on the Presidential debate circuit; if anything the[y] elevate the rhetoric on the stage and entice all three candidates to bring this debate back to policy." I have emailed Schwaderer for clarification.)

* Utah State Sen. Mark Madsen (R).  

Anthony Fisher found other Utah delegates who said they were leaning Johnson, and when Nick Gillespie and I interviewed a bunch of Millennial delegates at the RNC, it was hard to find any who didn't prefer Gary Johnson to Donald Trump.

Still, the big endorsement gossip yesterday was about whether Johnson was going to get the nod this week from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The source.

Nebraska in the 1960s

Nebraska's name is derived from transliteration of the archaic Otoe words Ñí Brásge, or the Omaha Ní Btháska, meaning "flat water", after the Platte River that flows through the state.

 

[Platt in German means flat - so, are we behind this, too?]

Nebraska is a state that lies in both the Great Plains and the Midwestern United States. Its state capital is Lincoln. Its largest city is Omaha, which is on the Missouri River. The state is crossed by many historic trails and was explored by the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The California Gold Rush brought the first large numbers of non-indigenous settlers to the area. Nebraska was admitted as the 37th state of the United States in 1867.

Check out these stunning color pictures ... and see what life of Nebraska looked like in the 1960s.

 

The source.

 

See also Willa Cather of Nebraska.

A Letter to Libertarians

Dear Fellow Libertarians,

That still feels a little weird to write "Libertarian" with a capitol "L", after carefully identifying myself for years as a "small 'l' libertarian" or a "libertarian Republican." Three weeks ago today, my official change of parties became public knowledge. I thought I might provide you with a few thoughts--as one who has recently entered your ranks, one who is a "recovering Republican", one who has gotten elected to office (Nebraska elects legislators on a non-partisan ballot), and one who desperately wants to see the LP grow and gain influence. 

First Impressions--Announcement Aftermath

1. I think we greatly overestimate the power of the two major parties in the larger electorate. I sent an email to 1800 people announcing my change of party affiliation--as a courtesy, because I wanted to be upfront with my constituents and supporters, and because I really wasn't going to be able to keep it a secret (even though my party affiliation will not show up if I run for re-election in two years, on the ballot). Of those 1800 emails (plus 200 letters, plus coverage in both major papers of the state and several radio and television stations), I've received right at 100 responses to date--either in the form of handwritten letters (1), phone calls (2 or 3), and email (the rest). I've also gotten messages on Facebook that I haven't tallied into this. The vast majority of the responses I've gotten have been positive (or at least indifferent and not angry). Longtime registered Republicans have said (and I'm condensing 90 responses into the gist of it) "that's ok. We know who you are, and we know how you'll vote. We elected you to do the best job you can for us. We don't want Lincoln to be hyperpartisan like D.C."  You get the general theme there. I don't guess I really understood until I started getting some of those responses just how little attention most people care about party politics, no matter what their registration is.
2. That is not to say that there aren't some people who think that we Libertarians are nothing more than spoilers. Some people who were mad at me because of a few votes were still mad at me. A few suggested I should resign. A few called me a liberal (I suggested that they take a look at my 100% Americans for Prosperity rating, and my gun rights record). One person suggested that they were going to start a recall petition against me (unfortunately for them, there is no recall mechanism for state officials in Nebraska). One person told me that I would be responsible if Hillary Clinton won (never mind that Nebraska routinely gives its electoral votes to the Republican candidate--except in 2008 when Obama got one of our split votes--apparently this person thought that my influence was so expansive that it would send shock waves throughout the country...  I'm skeptical about that--if a state legislator in Nebraska switching parties is such an indictment of the Republican candidate for President that it causes a loss, that doesn't speak very highly of the candidate, I don't think.

First Impressions--The People (Yeah, I'm talking about you)

1. I knew this going in--having been around libertarian types (and being one) for a long time. You're smart, well-read, principled (perhaps to a fault), independent. All good things. You're also used to not winning and just trying to be the Jiminy Cricket conscience for everyone else.  
2. While Republicans turning Libertarian, turning Republican, is not a particularly new phenomenon (think Ron Paul, who only served in Congress as a Republican, but who ran for President both as the LP nominee, and for the Republican nomination), this year shapes up as a different type of race, and some of you seem to be struggling with it.
   1. One other state legislator besides myself (John Moore, Nevada) has switched parties. Libertarian leaning Republicans are looking more and more carefully at the Libertarian Party, and switching. Your candidates for BOTH President and Vice President are former Republicans who were elected and re-elected in Democrat states. 
   2. These newcomers to the Party bring both good baggage and bad baggage with them, from your perspective. People who have been part of winning campaigns, people who have won elections, people who have friends who can help them fund campaigns, people who may not be as perfectly libertarian as you would like...are they trying to take over? Will they water down the libertarian philosophy? Will their numbers make the LP a more dominant player in the political scene? You have a lot of questions, and concerns--I get it. And no one really knows the answer, but let me suggest a few things.

 Libertarianism is like a Bag of Tootsie Pops--Different Flavors on the outside--some you like more than others--but get to the Core, and you still get a Tootsie Roll (more liberty?).

1. I'm fond of Tootsie Rolls. That's my candy of choice for parades, because if we don't use them all in the parade, they come home with me. I like Tootsie POPS, as well. Some of the outer shell flavors I like better than others. The red and purple (cherry and grape?--who knows, really?) are my favorites, followed by orange and whatever other brightly colored ones there are. I don't like the brown-shelled ones, really, although in the interest of getting to the Tootsie Roll, I'll eat them if there's nothing else left in the bag.  
2. Libertarians come in lots of different flavors. Some focus on economics. Some on civil liberties. Some on foreign policy. And on, and on. The question we all have to ask is this: if someone chooses to affiliate with the LIBERTARIAN PARTY, and can articulate ANY libertarian principles in any of those areas, do we walk away from the purple candidate because we prefer red, or do we suck it up and look at the end goal. 
3. Labeling makes a difference in knowing what you're going to get when you get past the outer shell. Take the wrapper off of Charms Blow Pops (I assume those are still out there) and Tootsie Pops, and drop someone in from some foreign place who has seen neither the Blow Pop nor the Tootsie Pop before. Ask them which one they would prefer, without letting the know what's at the core. They look similar from the outside what you get on the inside is very different (a wad of bubble gum, or a delightful piece of waxy, chewy chocolate--yeah, I know). Which is more important: the outer shell, or what's in the middle after you've licked (or bitten) through the outer shell? I speak for only myself, but after having moved to the Libertarian Party (even though I serve in a non-partisan position, and will run on a non-partisan ballot), I am more in tune with considering how the LP would view things.

Voluntarism--for Better or Worse

1. You may not like all of us. But keep in mind that we've moved YOUR way, largely without a life vest. I'm not trying to boost my own standing, but consider that Republicans who leave their party and become Libertarians are not taking the "easy way." They've seen something in you they like. They have risked a natural voter base in a major political party, and taken a leap of faith for principle, not for political advantage (there are, according to the most recent records I've got, about 75 registered Libertarians in my Legislative district--no great base to build on there). 
2. The #TeamGov/#JohnsonWeld2016 team of Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the same--they haven't left the Republican Party because of this mass shift in the electorate (sometimes--most recently in large numbers in the 80s--you see elected and former elected officials move from one of the two major parties into the other, in something of a "realignment" based on a changing positions of the parties and the way that voters align with those positions). They CHOSE to become Libertarians, they CHOSE to run as Libertarians--knowing that Libertarians typically don't even muster 1% of the vote in a presidential race, and have to fight on an ongoing basis to get ballot access in many states. For what? To be an asterisk on a Wikpedia Page devoted to the 2016 Presidential Election? Maybe, or maybe they see this as a moment to increase the cause of Liberty, win or lose.
3. You don't have to like or trust any or all of us "newcomers" to your party. But listen to your own precepts, and give us a chance as individuals. Talk to us, ask us questions. We may not be your particular flavor of Tootsie Pop, but if we're on the team with you, working with you, do you get more liberty or less? 

My Case--the Libertarian Party of Nebraska

1. All that said, I have to say that the Libertarian Party generally, and the Libertarian Party of Nebraska specifically, have been good to me. They've welcomed me with mostly open arms. It probably doesn't hurt that I've worked with some of them over the years in various liberty-related events and efforts, but still, we entered uncharted territory when I became (for the time being) the highest ranking elected Libertarian in the country. 
2. Even the LPNE has different flavors--some I'm pretty  comfortable with, and some not so much. 

Some Last Words (for now) and Unsolicited Advice

1. This could be a banner year for the LP--whether Johnson/Weld has a chance to win or not, their candidacy has gotten more press ALREADY than I've ever seen of a Libertarian Party candidate. I was at the LP Table at a local festival on Saturday, and a woman walking by was talking to one of the guys tabling, and when he handed her a Gary Johnson flyer, she said "oh yeah, I've heard about him" !!!  THAT is a big deal, and ought to be embraced, and used as a means for building the LP into the future. 
2. Credible candidates=Credible Party. It does't all have to be about the Presidency, or even Congress. Run Libertarians for County Commissioner, City Council, School Board. HELP those candidates. Build a message that promotes liberty and still speaks to the voters' concerns. Win elections. Govern. Build the "farm team." Rinse, repeat. And in a few election cycles, the idea of a Libertarian Congressman, Senator, or President won't seem so difficult to imagine.
3. Learn how to win. Some of these people coming in from (especially) the Republican Party have experience in winning campaigns. They understand the importance of campaign mechanics, of messaging. They've worked in the trenches--listen to what they tell you about what they've seen. You don't have to agree with them on everything, or follow their every lead, but consider that they might have some ideas that could help if applied to the Libertarian effort.
4. NOW is, I think, a great time to be a Libertarian. We are facing a "perfect storm" that could grow the LP by many orders of magnitude. Both major party candidates have serious flaws and high negatives. A third party effort in some states by Bernie Sanders could change the dynamics of the race even more. Libertarians, by virtue of a team that must be taken seriously in the media based on who is on it (the two governors), have the potential to do well at an unprecedented level, BUT...
5. We need to avoid the trap of the circular firing squad. I left the GOP in part because the team that I was supposed to be on started shooting at me (metaphorically, of course). Republicans and Democrats can do that to each other with less impact--there are a lot of them, and a few defections doesn't impact much of anything. There aren't enough Libertarians that we can afford to do that to each other.  If you don't agree with the "flavor" of Libertarianism that in control right now, then work to put more of your flavor in the candy dish. Recruit more people who agree with you, rather than insulting others who are seemingly in control right now. 
6. Yes, I know--Libertarians and libertarians oftentimes fight about who is the most libertarian. Whatever. Let's be a REAL party and win, and not just a sit in the lounge and complain. Accept the different flavors. Talk with the other flavors. Back in the days of Tootsie Pop Drops, you could put TWO different flavors in your mouth at the same time--we can do that and still get more liberty than we have now. 
7. Last tortured metaphor....Herding cats is tough. Getting two cats to stay in the same place is oftentimes difficult. But it's entirely possible to have multiple cats living in the same house, eating out of the same food dish and drinking out of the same water dish. They can have very different personalities--one might be cuddly, and the other psychotic; but they're both still cats. 

For Liberty,

Senator Laura Ebke

Nebraska District 32

Senator Laura Ebke on Joining the Libertarian Party

Image credit.

Senator Laura Ebke's move to join the Libertarian Party after decades of dedicated political work as a member of the Republican party is eliciting media coverage, including this report at Reason.

As a subscriber to her regular newsletter, I have received the below statement, which I would like to share with the readers of RedStateEclectic:

June 1, 2016

Dear Georg,

Yesterday, Tuesday, May 31, I sent a letter, primarily to folks in the district, who had supported me financially in my campaign for the Legislature in 2014. The purpose of the letter was to give them the courtesy of a "heads up" before a more general announcement.  I am now providing you with most of that letter, because I want you to hear this from me before it hits the presses. Based on phone calls I'm getting, it would appear that rumors are out there, and before I talk to the press, I want you to know what's going on.

Late last week, I initiated a change of political party registration online. I have switched from Republican affiliation, to Libertarian. PLEASE take the time to read my reasons below.

My reasons for making this switch are many, and it was not made without many months of consideration.  Let me tell you a little bit about the thought process I’ve been through—and assure you that my basic view of the world has not changed.

First, I have always considered myself to be a conservative.  I was born into a conservative Republican family in 1962, heard talk of politics from an early age (I’m not sure I believe the family lore that my first word was “Goldwater”). I idolized Nebraska’s late Senator Carl Curtis while I was still in elementary school in Fairbury.  For most of my childhood, someone in my family—either my father, grandfather, or mother, was chair of the Republican Party in Jefferson County.

When I turned 13, I joined the then-active Teen Age Republicans (TARs).  In 1976, at the age of 14, I watched the Republican Convention in Kansas City on TV with my dad, cried because Ronald Reagan lost the nomination to President Ford, and then went out to the family cars the next morning, and changed the bumper stickers from Reagan to Ford.

By the time I was 16, I was the Nebraska TAR Chair.  I’d knocked on doors with Congressman Doug Bereuter in his first campaign.  I was a political activist, a proud constitutional conservative, and a proud Republican. I have, as I write this, a collection of about 40 Frankoma elephant mugs, in my home office, which were sold beginning in 1968 until the early 2000’s, primarily as fundraisers for local Republican Women’s clubs.  I’m only missing a few in the total collection.

I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and my second one for him in 1984.  I voted for George Bush, senior (although I probably would have preferred Jack Kemp as a more visionary alternative); I voted for Bob Dole, even though his approach was not really what I yearned for; George W. Bush got my vote in 2000 and 2004, even though I became increasingly disillusioned with the “conservatism” of the Party and its leaders.

My view of conservatism has always been a Goldwater-Reagan based view: smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, respect for constitutional rights—and on the national scene, a strong military, but not an overly aggressive one.  In other words, I believe in a constitutionalism which looks to the principles of our founders as a guide.

By 2008, I was feeling like “movement conservatism” that I’d grown up a part of, was becoming largely absent in the Republican Party.  I saw a glimmer of hope in the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. He was, perhaps, a little too eccentric and even too ideologically pure, for the Republican Party, but after attending one of his rallies in Kansas City in the summer of 2007, I saw hope for a party that could attract young people who actually had a philosophy of government that I could match up with.

A group of Ron Paul supporters (mostly) and I chartered the Republican Liberty Caucus here in Nebraska. The RLC is a national organization, founded in the early 90s, for the purpose of promoting the cause of liberty within the Republican Party.  Some welcomed the activism of the RLC in Nebraska—others didn’t.  But we persisted, and for anyone who saw the significant crowds of people who walked with me in most of the parades in 2014, most of those folks—in addition to family—were my RLC friends.

Although the Legislature is a constitutionally NON-PARTISAN body, and many would never know—based on election filings or ballots—that I had changed parties, I think it’s important for you to understand why I’ve made the decision to do so at this time.  Let me just give you the highlights:

1. As a partisan activist who was part of an insurgent group of volunteers (the RLC), it was easy to wear the occasional disdain of establishment partisans as a badge of honor; as a state legislator, the pressure to “vote the ‘party’ way”—even if that way is contrary to one’s firm beliefs—is immense. I am happy to discuss and take responsibility for the votes I cast with my constituents and those of you who are getting this letter.  We will not always agree, but you deserve to know why I voted the way that I did.  But the pressure—sometimes near bullying—by some of my colleagues, and outside forces—to vote a particular way because “that’s the Republican way” has disheartened me.  There is no discussion about ideas, and little negotiation—if a bill is controversial, the teams are supposed to split up, and everyone is expected to “fly right.” I believe that’s lazy policymaking.
2. As a Republican, the pressure to vote with the Republican governor is significant.  The truth be told, on the vast majority of issues I agree with Governor Ricketts, and will continue to agree with him.  But the notion that the Governor should be able to tell legislators how to vote because they are registered in the same party—or that “good Republicans” would work to keep something “off of the Governor’s desk”--does a disservice to the role of the legislature and to the intention of the founders when they created a republican form of government with separate branches--and guaranteed state governments would be the same. I have no objection to conversations between the branches of government—in fact, I suspect that better policy would be made if there was more conversation and fewer demands of partisan loyalty.
3. I consider myself a “movement constitutional conservative ”—and while not all libertarians are conservative constitutionalists, many are; and those who would be considered “movement conservatives” almost always have a strong stream of libertarianism running through their veins.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”  As the Republican Party has seemed to ignore constitutional governance; as Republicans have failed to make good on their promise of smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal control…this decision to make a break from the party that I’ve been registered with for 36 years, and active in for most of the 18 years before that, began to weigh heavily on my mind.
4. My decision to change my registration has nothing to do with a changing philosophy on my part. It has little to do with any particular candidate or candidates. It has some to do with life in the State Capitol, but it has a lot to do with a growing sense that I’ve had that the Republican Party of 2016 is fundamentally different than the Republican Party that I grew up in. 

To review more succinctly:

• I am changing my voter registration, but not my view of the world. If you have mostly liked the way that I’ve voted in the past, you’ll probably continue to like it.
• To the extent that I’m welcome, I will continue to work with ALL of the constitutional conservatives in the Legislature; and I’ll certainly work with the Governor if he wants to work with me. I will always be open to conversations and negotiations, but I won’t be held hostage to partisan considerations. Those who want my vote on a controversial issue will have to make the case based on solid reasoning—not on manufactured partisan hyperbole.

Finally, while I hope this doesn’t change your view negatively of me, I realize that it could. I have reconciled to the idea that I might not receive the support for future campaigns that I did in the past. I’ve also reconciled to the notion that it’s possible that the Republican Party will seek to “take me out” if I run for re-election in 2018.  It’s also possible that I will be looked upon less kindly for potential leadership positions—even though we do not run as partisans, nor do we organize by party.

While serving the people of the 32^nd Legislative District has been one of the great honors of my life, the people of the district have every right to vote me out of office if they feel that I’m not representing them adequately—and that includes if they feel that as a Libertarian instead of a Republican, I’m not adequately reflecting their views. Time will tell whether that label will matter to the citizens of the district, or whether they’ll judge me by my actions.

I hope that in the next two years, I can prove to my constituents and other supporters that the Party label doesn’t mean anything other than wearing the label which more accurately reflects my political views. I hope that they can see that by taking the “road less traveled”, I may be able to better serve ALL of our citizens, and not just the Republicans. I remain steadfastly in support of constitutionally limited government, and doing everything I can to reduce the negative impact of government in all of our lives—especially in the taking of our income through taxation.

I am, of course, always willing to exchange email, or talk with you in person about this, or anything else. And, as always, my office staff and I look forward to serving the people of the 32nd Legislative district the best that we can over the next 2 years.

Kind Regards,

Senator Laura Ebke

 

See also here.

An Honest Politician

Image credit.

A surprise prima facie that will not surprise anyone for long who knows Laura Ebke, the Nebraska State Senator who keeps attracting many supporters thanks to her conscientious reasoning and her honest and upright political conduct.

 

Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete left the Republican Party and registered as a Libertarian Party member two weeks after Gov. Pete Ricketts called out state senators who are Republicans by name for not supporting him or the GOP on some contentious legislative issues.

"I'd been thinking about changing for several months," she said Wednesday, "but I suppose that was sort of the final push."

Ebke, who always had identified herself as a Republican whose political philosophy was Libertarian, changed her registration online last week.

"I'm not willing to bend my principles to go along or cast a vote just for the sake of party unity," she said during a telephone interview.

Ebke was sitting in the back of the room at the Republican state convention in Omaha last month when Ricketts criticized more than a dozen state senators who are Republicans for votes they cast, arguing for the need to elect "platform Republicans" to the nonpartisan Legislature.

"The governor is entitled to call people out," she said, "but that was an interesting time to do that."

Ebke has cast votes to override several of the governor's vetoes, including his rejection of bills to repeal the death penalty, authorize Nebraska driver's licenses for young undocumented immigrants who have lawful presence in the United States and grant the right for those young people to acquire professional and occupational licenses to work in the state.

"I agree with the Republican Party on many things and I have many friends in the party," she said.

"Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but they tend to place not such a high emphasis on civil liberties."

Ebke said the approaching nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Party's presidential choice affected her decision "maybe a little (because) I can't imagine myself voting for him."

"But it's less about Trump per se than what that reflects about the Republican Party," she said.  

Now, she said, she has a presidential nominee she can support.

The Libertarian Party last weekend chose former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as its nominee and paired him with former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld as the party's vice presidential nominee.

Ebke said she has "great respect" for Republican Sen. Ben Sasse because of his determination to "stand his ground" in refusing to support Trump despite growing pressure from his party.

"The negative ramifications for me may not be as great as they are for him," she said.

Ebke was elected to the Legislature in 2014 and is midway through her first term.

 

As reported by Don Walton of The Lincoln Journal Star

Related articles

In the Arena Now

The Libertarian Party Choice

Yesterday I mentioned the prospective Libertarian Party ticket of Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The website for the Johnson campaign is here. Lots of things to see there, but perhaps the most visually compelling are some of the videos.  I especially liked this one:

 

Johnson and Weld represent, I think, a libertarianism that really predates the Libertarian Party--or at least the Paulian resurgence of libertarianism in 2007-2008. They were Republicans of a different kind in the 90's and early 2000's.  They may not have read all of the libertarian "texts", and may seem not very philosophically grounded to the younger generation of libertarians, but they are--like many of us--disaffected (and perhaps even unwelcome) in today's Republican party.  

I am, of course, a little biased.  I met Governor Johnson several times in the 2009-2011 time frame. in 2010, he came to Nebraska to speak to our Republican Liberty Caucus-Nebraska convention, and also spoke at a fundraiser for the RLCNE. 

There are, of course, others running for the Libertarian nomination (although from the outside, it looks like Johnson is the front runner). Another interesting candidate (and seemingly the closest competitor with Johnson) is Austin Petersen (website here). As I lurk on the pages of my Libertarian friends, it appears to me that he appeals to many of the younger, Paul-type Libertarians. In reading through some of his web page, and watching some of his videos, he seems to be much more grounded in libertarian philosophy.  He's young, he's internet savvy, and he's well spoken. His YouTube page has an abundance of video--some in brief pieces, some in larger chunks. He's also done a good job of attending a lot of the State Libertarian Party Conventions, where I had a VERY brief interaction with him (I was invited to speak at the Nebraska LP Convention last month as--I guess--the most Libertarian like legislator in the Nebraska Legislature).

Petersen appears (as of today) to be Glenn Beck's new favorite candidate. 

 

Petersen and Johnson seem to be the most likely nominees. There are several others out there, but probably the most interesting one is John McAfee--software security guru and billionaire. It seems that he is viewed as a little bit TOO eccentric, even for the Libertarian Party, and is a dark horse candidate at best. McAfee seems (at least based on a scan of his website and looking at a few of his campaign videos) to be running a pro-Libertarian campaign, as opposed to a pro-McAfee campaign. His campaign is emphasizing the #VoteDifferent idea.  Here's one of his videos, which is reminiscent of some of the "best of" the Ron Paul campaigns.

 

Watch for reports coming out of Orlando next weekend (Memorial Day Weekend) as they have their convention. Who they choose--and why they choose that person--will probably say much about the future of the Libertarian Party. 

Related articles

Why Did the Former Republican Gov. of New Mexico Join the Libertarian Party to Run for President?

Vote different? John McAfee 'borrows' from Apple in Presidential bid

Presidential Follies

 This year promises to be an extraordinarily entertaining election year for those of us who enjoy watching presidential politics. 

REPUBLICANS:

The "Donald" seems sure to win the nomination. He has run a strong, populist campaign, and I'll give him credit for that. I'm not really sure what he believes yet, but I'm not really sure he knows what he believes. I saw a report the other day which showed his voter registration over the last couple of decades--he's been back and forth between Republican and Democrat quite a few times, and his current iteration as a Republican was was within the last few years.

DEMOCRATS:

Hillary Clinton is--unless she's indicted before then--going to be the nominee of the party. Bernie Sanders promises to take it till the last ballot is cast at the convention, however, so the promise for some entertainment from the Democrats exists. Hillary will probably have to out promise Bernie (i.e., try to match him for socialism), in order to keep all out war from occurring--and to keep the Bernie folks from bolting the Party.  Sanders has hinted at a 3rd Party run, but with one exception, there aren't going to be many serious opportunities for 3rd Parties this year, just because of the need for ballot access.

That one exception is....

LIBERTARIANS:

The Libertarian Party is on the cusp of having one of the most interesting tickets in its history--we'll know for sure after their convention over Memorial Day weekend.  What's interesting about it, you ask?  The emerging "likely ticket" of former New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld as Vice President.  

Why is this so unusual?  A couple of reasons:

• Johnson and Weld were both Republican GOVERNORS--in other words, unlike (to the best of my recollection) any other Libertarian ticket to date, this one has two people who have both won statewide elections, in largely Democratic states--and they both won re-elections, as well.There's more practical, successful political experience than there's been on a LP Ticket, ever. 
• Having two former Governors on the ticket means that the LP will be the only ticket which has both members of the ticket having had serious elective executive experience (Trump, obviously has none, no matter who he names as his VP; Clinton was  U.S. Senator, but her executive experience was appointive as Secretary of State, and not everyone would consider it to have been successful).
• Rumors of Koch Brothers tossing money at the Libertarian Party in this race aside, the Johnson-Weld ticket should be able to raise (and spend) more money than previous Libertarian Party tickets have been able to.  One gets the impression that lack of funds seriously restricted the campaign trips that previous LP candidates could make. That could make a huge difference in polling, which then determines whether the LP candidates will make the debates in the fall (the standard is that they have to be polling at 15% in a series of national polls, I believe).

Does that mean the Libertarian Party nominees have a shot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?  Probably not--although there are some out there who contemplate Johnson/Weld potentially winning their home states and one or two others, resulting in no one having 270 electoral votes, and throwing the race to the House of Representatives.  I think that's a lot of "ifs".But what id does mean, perhaps, is that a serious conversation about what government should be doing can be had. It might mean that the LP will get 5% of the vote or more--which would then make them eligible for matching funds in 2020.  

The "gravitas" of a ticket with two, two term governors may provide a refuge for both Republicans and Democrats who are discontent with their likely nominee.  That's one of the interesting things about the Libertarian Party--smaller government and fiscal responsibility (conservative issues, typically), also means (to many Libertarians) less government in your personal lives (which seems to be more appealing to the liberal side of the equation). 

A strong Libertarian run has the potential to shake up the binary R or D decisions that people make.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats will dislike a Libertarian presence, but I think that it could actually force both parties to define themselves more clearly, and prioritize their proposals for governance accordingly.  I don't think that we're approaching the end of a two party system in the U.S.  I think we'll always have two parties, unless we structurally change the way we elect our representatives (winner take all, single member districts; as opposed to proportional multi-member districts). But the names of the parties, and the looks of the parties can (and has) change; and I think it possible that third parties could serve as something akin to "holding areas" until such time as a realignment takes place, and it becomes clear to citizens once again where they belong.

Keep watching--there will be more excitement before this is all over, I think.

LLE

 

Returning From the Depths of A Legislative Session--Checking In

Once again, I need to thank Georg for keeping the home fires burning here.

Now that the 104th Legislature has ended (elections this fall will mean at least 11 new senators--maybe more--will be elected for the 105th Legislature), I have many things to talk about.

My interim (between now and next January) will be spent working on a manuscript--sort of a political history of one policy within the Nebraska Legislature (more on that later); participating in interim studies for committees I sit on; planning legislation for next year; trying to reacquaint myself with my children (and get "senior pictures" set up for our daughter, who will graduate next year); taking a one-week family vacation with all of my siblings and most of their families; and possibly (still in discussions) teaching a couple of classes for local private college in the fall/winter terms that run from late August till right before Christmas.

I won't write a lot, and I will try to couch my comments about things locally in such a way as to not do irreparable damage to my political career, but there are some things which might be of some interest to those who read this blog.

I'll start writing in the next week or two, but at this point, really just wanted to check in, and reacquaint myself to the readers.

LE

 

Related articles

The Swearing-In of Senator Laura Ebke

Filibusters push some issues aside

Murante won't contest redistricting reform veto

Ideas of Freedom (3/3) - Reprise (10)

Image credit.

 

Discrediting Liberty - The Mirage of Autonomous Spheres of Freedom

What discredits classically liberal visions of liberty in the eyes of many is the insinuation of autonomous spheres of freedom.

By this term, I mean a conception of liberty that excludes from its vision institutions that in fact determine the possibility and degree of freedom in a society, especially political comportment and the role of structures of maximal power in the working out of social order by us human beings.

The openly anarchist libertarian believes that it is indispensable to abolish governance structures imposed by politics and the state if freedom is to prevail.

Far more important in our day, than the reading of a free society by the anarchist fringe, is the crypto-anarchism on which non-anarchist defences of free markets often tend to be predicated. For, not rarely do defenders of free markets cross inadvertently into the sombre corners of anarchism by sharing the anarchist belief in an autonomous sphere of freedom.

What they are up against is the fact that most of us are informed with at least a robust intuition that there are no autonomous spheres of liberty. Hence, arguments based on the autonomy-assumption are likely to be received with wide-spread disapprobation; and I suspect that the case for free markets does register substantial collateral damage owing to its association with an apolitical concept of freedom.

An Apolitical Concept of Freedom

In my first post in this series, The Idea(s) of Freedom (1/3) ... , I have argued that what tears apart Classical Liberalism is its mission to present itself as a uniform, self-contained whole. It trades off intellectual consistency at the expense of recognising the real forces determining the state of freedom in a society. In the second post, The Idea(s) of Freedom (2/3) ... , I hoped to show that Classical Liberalism fails in its effort to define freedom as a social phenomenon, in contrast to Hobbes' mechanistic notion, according to which freedom is the power to remove external impediments of any kind. The failure to fully grasp the social nature of freedom is due to an inability to capture the dynamic conditions of freedom in the real world, where the political character of freedom-defining social relations is pervasive. The result of that condition is that a uniform idea of freedom as sought after by Classical Liberalism will not be able to prevail either in the intellectual realm nor as a popularly credible reflection of the state of liberty in the real world.

The Lockean Roots of Crypto-Anarchism

In Chapter 8 - The Idea of Freedom - of The System of Liberty. Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, G.H. Smith offers a number of insights that I feel I may be able to rearrange and resell to my own readers as an explanation of how an unfortunate tradition has sprung into life that weds arguments for liberty to the mirage of autonomous spheres of freedom.

In the Lockean paradigm, "natural liberty" refers to freedom as it would exist in an anarchistic state of nature, a condition of equal rights in which there is no political authority or subordination, a society in which all "Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another." 

(The System of Liberty, p. 145)

The crux is that the founding vision of classical liberalism as presented by John Locke does already carry in it an attestation of the feasibility of an anarchist world.

Locke's state of nature is essentially peaceful and civilized. People can exercise their natural freedom in an anarchistic society without necessarily lapsing into a state of war, because they are able through the use of reason, to discern the many benefits of social cooperation.

(Ibid. p. 148)

It is neither clear whether on this point Locke was arguing for tactical purposes - he wanted the Stuart monarchy to be overthrown and wished to diffuse fears of Hobbesian anarchy - nor whether he adhered consistently to a minimalist role of government (ensuring protection from violence and fraud, and no more), but in his vision we certainly find prefigured

a perspicuous divide between

• natural society (human interaction independent of and unhampered by government) and

• political society (human interaction facilitated by government action).

He bequeaths to posterity leads that encourage his successors to keep the divide central to their thinking and to add more weight to natural society than to political society. At any rate, the divide is a grievous error, because the intermeshing of collective action with individual action is a more powerful and more accurate paradigm in the study of human society than is their compartmentalisation and juxtaposition, which ultimately tempts us to believe in the mirage of autonomous spheres of freedom.

It is odd for even a tempered apologist of government and suggestive of a preference of natural society over political society that

Locke views government as a supplement to social order rather than its indispensable foundation. Government is a convenience rather than a necessity.

(Ibid. 148)

The liberal bias in favour of natural society has had momentous consequences for the future of liberalism, playing, as I surmise, a significant role in its decline, but also for the development of the social sciences, not least economics, which carries ugly scars from such extraction:

Economic science was made possible by the discovery of an autonomous economic order - a society of mutually beneficial exchanges that operates through the spontaneous adjustments of natural liberty rather than through the coercive and cumbersome decrees of a legislator.

(Ibid. 151)

Liberalism has been eclipsed by the growth of freedom, especially rapidly since the mid-1800s. Why? People are looking for freedom, and perhaps more commonly, people are trying to arrange their affairs in a free society, and thus shaping it, largely by acting on the level of intermediary conditions, rather than on the high plane of abstraction on which liberal theory is almost exclusively situated.

People do not find the autonomous sphere of freedom that G.H. Smith describes below. They cannot find it, because it does not exist: 

By introducing that rigid distinction between natural and political society, Smith is absolutely right to argue that

the door was opened for an anarchistic mode of social explanation [which comprises and explains the adoption of patterns of what I call crypto-anarchism among non-anarchists, G.T.].

By "anarchistic," I mean those social activities that are normally unaffected by positive laws and that would continue to function without government.

[Well, they would not "continue to function," as they are "normally unaffected by positive laws" thanks to government. Smith is assuming away the cultural, political, legal and economic interdependencies of mutable mutual coercion that constantly create and re-create "the voluntary institutional relationships" that he refers to below. G.T.]

These anarchistic

["anarchistic" no longer in inverted commas, that is how fast anarchism transitions from "so-to-speak" to "real," G.T.]

spheres of interaction - which are "governed"

[governance, in truth, ubiquitous in any reasonably stable social order is conjured away from the anarchistic sphere by nothing more costly than a pair of inverted commas, G.T.]

by moral and religious opinions, psychological bonds, aesthetic sensibilities, personal habits, institutional incentives, customs, economic self-interest, and the like - have far more influence on social behaviour (especially in a free society) than does the fear of legal punishment. These voluntary institutional relationships are enclaves of natural liberty - anarchistic societies or states of nature that operate within, but independently, of political society.

(Ibid. p. 151)

See also The Gap of Intermediary Conditions, Red Cedars and Apple Trees - The Political Character of the Economic Process and Classical Liberalism vs. Anarchism (1/3).

The original post.