On Moral Foundations And Libertarians

Oct 02 2008 Published by under Democrats, Hunting, Miscellany, Political Parties, Religion, Republicans, Sex, Society, Sports, Twitter

One thing I really dig about Twitter is the fascinating links people share. Today I got into a discussion with Kevin McCann about a snippet from this TED talk on moral foundations and the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Sports is to war as pornography is to sex.

The speaker’s point was we live out our collective need for the latter is each by participating in the former in each pair. We have a tribal background that makes us warlike, so we engage in sports. I think the point is fundamentally flawed. I, like most people I know, have a healthy competitive streak, but engage in sports because it’s fun and I get exercise. It’s not because I want to act out conflict issues.

What was more interesting about the TED discussion, though, was the exploration of the different moral values shared by liberals and conservatives. The site drove to a website where you can participate in the mass moral survey. I tripped on over and took the test and here are my results compared to the larger populations of “conservatives” versus “liberals”.

My Moral Compass

My Moral Compass

What I find fascinating is how far out of sync I am with liberals and conservatives. The site doesn’t give you the option to explore your score as it relates to others with ideological interests matched to your own. I’d be curious to see if other “libertarians” had similar scores. I scored far lower on the religion/purity scale than even the liberals, but I also had far less respect for “authority” and “loyalty” than even the lefties. I’m not sure if that’s a reflection of my membership in the “leave me the hell alone” coalition.

Some of the questions about “harm” were a bit skewed by the study’s lack of distinction between harming people and harming animals. I’m a hunter. I like to put meat in my fridge. Yet the test asks whether I think “it’s morally wrong to harm a defenseless animal.”

I said I absolutely disagreed for the simple reason that shooting a deer could be described that way. Frankly, I think anyone who has used shampoo tested on animals that had their tear ducts removed or eaten a Thanksgiving turkey that has been force fed growth hormone injected grain for a year or two has done more to “harm” defenseless animals than my one bullet, one kill hunt. But that’s another discussion.

That view does, however, account for the low number on my “harm” trait. It was also impacted, apparently, by my negative response to the statement that the single greatest concern we should have in life is that nobody suffer. Suffering is part of life, and common to every animal in the animal kingdom. We’re never going to change that.

My larger question still remains. Are libertarians dramatically different from liberals and conservatives? If you’re interested in answering that question, and consider yourself libertarian, register at yourmorals.org and take the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Once you have, leave me a comment with your political ideology and scores. I’ll compile them and report back in the future.

Comments

Enough Of Your Warnings About Third Party Spoilers

Jun 13 2008 Published by under Congress, Democrats, Elections, Government, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court

I’ve made comments on a number of occasions that I’m not sure whether I’ll end up voting for McCain or Bob Barr. When I have, I have received DMs via Twitter, e-mails, and text messages with much the same comment, “If you vote for Barr, you’re just giving the election to Obama.” True enough. That is essentially the reason I’m still undecided. I’m not sure that I want to help tip that particular scale.

Making that argument to someone like me, however, is kind of a goofy thing to do. I’ve been involved in campaign politics for almost twenty years now. I’ve worked in politics at just about every level. If I’m looking at a third party, I fully understand the implications of that.

Further, I think anyone who watched the elections in 1992 and 2000 knows full well what that means. Even if I didn’t, however, it’s still a lame argument. It assumes you know more about what I want than I do.

When I decide to vote Libertarian (and that day will come soon, I suspect, though maybe not this year), It should send a signal that on my set of issues, I have determined the GOP has completely abdicated it’s support. Yet the best argument you can offer is I should vote for the guy that’s giving me nothing because it’s a better option than the other guy who will give me nothing.

The other rejoinder is, “you should vote GOP for no other reason than the possibility that liberals will retire from the Supreme Court.” Well, neither Republican nor Democratic appointees have done a lot for me lately. I have jokingly said, “the Constitution’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.” By that I implicate the Supreme Court as bit players in the larger partisan manipulation of society. Yesterday’s 5-4 decision on the rights of detainees is exemplary of that.

Look at the attempt to deny habeas corpus to the detainees held at Guantanamo and the GOP’s willingness to toss that out for at least one set of people. The Constitution seems pretty clear on trials:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, admittedly, I’m not a legal scholar, but I don’t see any reference in the the sixth amendment that carves out military tribunals, Guantanamo Bay, and enemy combatants. That almost half the court (the conservative appointees no less) would toss out long held Constitutional protections in an overtly partisan manner is discouraging. Add to that the willing treatment of these detainees as somehow less than human and you’ve got a court that makes me more nervous than thankful.

With that precedent set, what would stop another Congress from deciding that Republicans did not deserve such rights if we protest? Based on the anti-militia group fever that ran rampant in the mid 1990s, I could see a Democrat political machine rounding up the most activist Republicans and holding them without trial as enemy combatants because “they might belong to militias.”

That also argues that the five liberal members of the court were not exactly acting with pure motives, either. The fact that the majority’s decision read like it was written from DailyKos talking points was not lost on me. The Supreme Court has become as partisan as Congress and now makes decisions based on prevailing partisan views, not based on the Constitution.

Why would your best argument against my third party vote be, “We’ll give you even more reactionary judges willing to set dangerous precedents for partisan reasons?”

So here’s what I’m trying to say… Don’t talk to me as if I have no idea what a third party vote means, and don’t talk to me as if you come from a position of moral authority when warning me against it. If either of the political parties stood for something beyond winning in the next election, I’d vote based on that. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that’s true.

Comments

The Coming Shift In The Electorate

Jun 10 2008 Published by under Democrats, Elections, Government, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans

When I was 10 years old, I discovered politics. I was glued to coverage of the 1980 Carter/Reagan race and began asking my folks a lot of questions about politics. One of the first questions I asked – and I suspect one of the first questions anyone asks about our system – was “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?”

Dad explained that Democrats believe in the power of the federal government and think that providing for the general welfare requires a large central authority with weaker subservient state governments. (Before you Democrats who are reading take issue with the definition, you should now my Dad is a life-long Democrat and that’s the way he described you then at 46, and the way he describes you today at 74).

Republicans, he said, have always believed power should begin at the state level with specific authority given to the federal government to handle issues that involve transactions between states and “common welfare” activities. Little else should be the duty of the fed, and general welfare projects especially should be undertaken by the states alone.

That response worked for me for a long time. It may not have been true in 1980, but lately I have become absolutely convinced it is no longer true today. While most within the GOP still believe a small federal government is the best route to effective government a split is clearly emerging with those in the party who increasingly look to the fed as the solution (especially to values issues.)

Take, for instance, Mike Huckabee’s recent comment that the greatest threat Republicans face is not from Democrats, but from a “new brand of libertarianism” within the party.

It amazes me that someone who sought to carry the mantle of the Republican Party in the presidential election would a) argue that government’s really not that bad, b) suggest that we need to figure out a way to pay for it (i.e. raising taxes), and c) claim anyone who opposes this view and believes that government is not the solution is somehow a great threat to Republicanism.

This is why I fundamentally believe we are on the verge of a fundamental shift in electoral politics, though I’m not sure how long it will take to come to pass. As the ‘compassionate conservative’ wing of the GOP turns more and more often to the federal government as a source of funds for their ‘conservative spending’, the libertarian wing of the party will pull away from the coalition more and more. As the pursuit of religious tenets leads to more and more constitutional amendments to implement theologically based bans, more and more of the center will sour on the GOP.

At the same time, the progressive wing of the Democratic party, as it exerts more and more control over the levers of the left, will alienate what I call the “Colorado Democrats” – the moderate Democrats that simply want to be left alone. They, too, will start to drift from the far-sided ideology of the parties. I firmly believe they were represented by a large segment of the 50% of the Democratic party that didn’t vote for Obama.

Together with the leave-me-alone wing of the GOP, they will unite in the middle and form a new, more pragmatic, socially tolerant, fiscally conservative voting bloc. You will see the emergence of a third tier in American politics – united by the simple desire to keep government off of their backs, out of their pocket, and out of their bedroom.

I still have several questions regarding how I see the final shakeup playing out. Will the social conservatives looking to the fed and the progressive community form a new coalition of big government believers? If so, will that lead us back to a simple division in politics based on the size/scope of federal powers? Or will their conflict over issues like gay marriage and abortion keep them apart? If they remain separate, and the electorate splits into three distinct groups, what sort of coalition policies will be born of the resulting mix?

I do believe that one thing is for sure – the formation of a third party will not be born of an egomaniacal billionaire or the rabid ideology of the political extremes. It will be born from the common minded ideology of those who have seen their parties abandon them and believe there is a better choice than two flavors of vanilla.

Comments

On Bob Barr and John McCain

May 28 2008 Published by under Bob Barr, Candidates, Elections, John McCain, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans

I’ve joked (ok, at least partly joked) lately that I may have trouble deciding whether to vote for Bob Barr in the election this November. While I think McCain (as compared to Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee) was the best alternative left in a pretty weak deck after Thompson failed to ignite, he’s no great shakes. People will vote for John McCain for the same reason they buy vanilla ice cream – they want something mild and flavorless rather than something they have to think about.

There will be, however, more than a few people who can’t stand the thought of someone as liberal as Obama, but also aren’t too keen on someone as liberal-friendly as McCain. So I started to actually take a serious look at the possible effect of a Barr candidacy on the possible outcome in November. There is a potential there for a Perot-like or Nader-like spoiler.

A lot of people I know within the GOP have adopted an attitude that can be summed up simply – the party deserves to get its ass kicked and spend some time in the wilderness. The reasoning is the GOP has lost its way on fiscal restraint, ethics, size/scope of government, and most other measures of the issues that brought us to the dance.

Now drawing out that analogy and thinking back to grade school dating power plays… If the date that brought you takes off and starts dancing with another, do you sit in the corner sulking, hoping they’ll come to their senses? Or do you find someone else to dance with in the hopes that they’ll get jealous and realize what they’re missing?

For people who are considering sitting this one out, Bob Barr may end up being their go-to guy instead.

His credentials are shaky at best. He led the charge for Clinton’s impeachment, but did so based on Bill’s shady campaign financing, not his extracurricular blow jobs. He led the charge on defining marriage as one man and one woman, but now regrets some of that and opposes a federal amendment because it violates the rights of states to decide things for themselves. He was for the Patriot Act before he was against it. He led the fight against medical marijuana laws, but the Libertarian platform has typically been pro-legalization.

So his past positions and present statements tend to paint a picture of a guy at odds with himself, and both his current and former party. Still, he had a fairly solid following when he was in Congress and his positions (however much they’ve solidified now) may be attractive enough to a sizable group of people.

The Libertarian Party typically garners between .3 and .5 percent of the vote nationally – not even enough votes to break out of the “other” category when the final tally is rung up. However, on a state by state basis, they could be significantly impact the GOP’s chances.

For instance, If Barr were able to pull just 2% in Ohio (based on 2004′s numbers) and those extra votes were subtracted from Bush’s total (let’s assume McCain runs about the same minus Barr’s votes), then a Barr candidacy could cost McCain Ohio. Barr would need to pull 5% in Florida (with the same assumptions) to cost the GOP the sunshine state.

But forget states like Florida and Ohio, and look at states like New Mexico, Iowa (tipped by a 2% and .8% swing, respectively) and Colorado (which would take about a 5% Libertarian vote). If Barr gets traction in those three states, suddenly you have enough EVs in play to overturn the results of 2004. Suddenly Obama walks into the White House while losing both Ohio and Florida. Colorado is already trending away from the GOP, New Mexico is fickle anyway, and Iowa was only won by a whisker as it was.

It wouldn’t take much for Barr to tip a couple of key states away from the GOP.

If McCain continues his about face on immigration reform, he’ll start driving people away faster than a dead rat in a salad bar. Yet he seems to be counting on making up for those losses by appealing to centrist Ds (and maybe the racists Dems that can’t stand pushing the button for the black man). If he pushes his ‘Uniter’ credentials, he risks reminding the GOP base exactly why they distrust/dislike him to begin with.

The next 5 month are going to be a tough tightrope for McCain to walk. Tilt too far to one hoping to pick up Democrats and drive more people to Barr. Tilt to far to the base to avoid bleeding supporters to the Libertarians and drive away the moderate Dems he seems to be courting.

Could Barr moving to McCain’s right force him to fight a two front war and lose? It’s possible.

I guess I should tone down the jokes about voting for Barr – that or just jump in his camp so I can be an early adopter. I suspect there may be a bunch of people moving that way. I may as well be the first… I’ll let you know what I decide sometime later.

Comments

A Credible Third Party? Go Bull Mooses!

Mar 28 2008 Published by under Democrats, Elections, Politics, Republicans

I found this really amusing. I was searching for the source of this quote, which I have seen attributed to both Alexander Fraser Tytler and Alexis de Tocqueville at various points.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

I stumbled upon an interesting essay by a lawyer in Georgia named Loren Collins who had apparently done the same exercise. Having found no source for the quote himself, he concludes:

Who, then, is the author of these quotes? Even after all of my research, I am afraid I still cannot say for certain.

All of this extraneous information is merely prologue for an odd side note about Mr. Collins. In 2006, he ran for Congress in Georgia as a member of the Bull Moose Party.

You may be surprised to learn that anyone other than Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Bull Moose (ok, technically, Roosevelt ran as a member of the Progressive Party – but not in the dirty hippie sense of that word.)

Well, the Bull Moose Party is trying to organize from the ashes of its former self and describes itself this way.

We are conservatives, libertarians, and liberals (in the classical sense) who, like Roosevelt, have seen the Republican Party move ever further in practice from the principles it ostensibly supports in theory.

They also throw in a brief not explaining who would be attracted to the Bull Moose philosophy.

If you’ve ever felt that you were too “conservative” for the Democratic Party, or too “liberal” for the Republicans, too socially and environmentally conscious for the Libertarians, too economically conscious for the Greens, too grounded in common sense for some of the smaller parties and not xenophobic and isolationist enough for the others, then the Bull Moose Party might be for you.

Well, that covers just about everyone, doesn’t it? Sure, there may be a few people hanging out in the wings of both parties, but everyone to the right of Ted Kennedy/John Kerry and the left of Alan Keyes should feel right at home in the Bull Moose Party.

Granted, their website hasn’t been updated in nearly two years and may have been set up solely for the purpose of Collins’ long-shot Congressional race. That should not dissuade you from entering “Bull Moose” on that voter registration form the next time you update it. After all, if it was good enough for Teddy, it should be good enough for you.

Comments

Older posts »

Livefyre Not Displaying on this post