The 'Liberaltarian' break-up

Screw you guys, I'm going home

During the 2008 election, there was much talk about the growing rift in the traditional economic alliance between libertarians and Republicans.

Disillusioned with 8 years of Republican rule that brought two overseas wars, new economic tariffs, and innovative ways to curtail civil liberties - there were many who decided to seek greener pastures.

For some, those greener pastures seemed to be in the Obama camp. A vocal critic of the Iraq War, PATRIOT ACT, and failed drug policies - it was thought he represented the best alternative for libertarian-leaning voters who were willing to trade economic liberalism in return for sensible foreign policy and renewed civil liberties. There were also those who believed his University of Chicago background would act as a moderating influence over his more Progressive instincts.

These people, it seems, were wrong. Instead, we seem to have received the worst of both worlds. Obama has failed to repudiate his predecessor's policies; Guantanamo Bay remains open despite promises to the contrary, domestic wiretapping continues unabated, and the DEA seems to be the one area where Bush-era holdovers are acceptable.

Even worse, perhaps, are the economic policies of the intelligentsia on the Left that have been sold to the American public; bailouts that privatize economic gains and socialize the losses, healthcare reforms that play favorites for the Unionized, and a disturbing willingness to bend statistics and obfuscate truth in order to score political points.

Some, perhaps, still hold hope for a Liberaltarian alliance, but I think economic policy differences will always trump any perceived similarities on social issues. Libertarians tend to be distrustful of centralized solutions - yet Democrats can't seem to conceive of anything besides. Milton Friedman is a revered figure to most libertarians, almost invariably included in the pantheon of influential libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century. Although there's disagreement over many of Milton's policy proposals (especially among Rothbardians, etc) there's very little debate over the huge influence Milton had in expanding the ideals of limited government and individual freedom. For some on the left, however, the picture above exemplifies their opinion of the man - the destroyer of our Middle Class, the creator of modern economic crises, and a corporate apologist.

If you can understand why some on the Left think Milton is one of the unrivaled evil influences of the 20th Century, and why libertarians believe the opposite - you'll know why a Liberaltarian alliance will never be long-lived.

More confusing polls

Majority claim to want filibuster eliminated

In recent years the filibuster has become the unloved step-child of the Senate. Both sides (depending on who has power) have derided the tactic as an affront to democracy and an abuse of Senate procedure.

Part of this is due to the hazy circumstances surrounding the filibuster origin. In the original Senate procedures two votes occurred before any bill was passed - the first ended debate and the second was for passage - in 1806 the Senate chose to do away with the first requirement, effectively allowing 'unlimited' debate on any particular bill. This wasn't fully utilized until Senators grouped together in 1841 to prevent the creation of a new National Bank until the session expired.

In the early filibusterin' days a vote for cloture required 2/3 of present Senators to end debate on a bill. This created the filibuster we remember from films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Senate rules required the filibustering party to remain present for the entire duration. This was changed in the 1970s to just require 60% of all Senators. This eliminated the need for a physical presence during the filibuster -replacing it with a universal requirement of 60% for any filibustered bill.

So now we have a situation where the minority party in the Senate can essentially obstruct a bill indefinitely until it receives > 60% support. According to some pundits (Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, etc) it has become an unacceptable blockage of much-needed reforms.

I have a few observations / criticisms of those who oppose the filibuster and those who employ it.

1) It seems as though perception of the filibuster massively changes depending on who wields control of the legislative process. When Republicans were trying to confirm Samuel Alito and other Justices during the Bush years Democrats were more than happy to employ filibusters until a (very unpopular) compromise was reached. Furthermore - the opinion of the 'nuclear option', reconciliation, threatened by Republicans (and derided by Democrats) has now reversed itself completely.

2) Has Republican 'obstructionism' vis a vis the filibuster truly been the culprit behind stalled health reform? Democrats controlled the Senate until Scott Brown's recent appointment - it seems the real reason for delayed reform was certain Democrat Senators attempting to obtain special favors for their constituents.

3) Ezra Klein says that opposition to the filibuster isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, it's a 'majoritarian' goal. Would it be a universally good thing to give the majority MORE power in this country? Has Ezra forgotten that only a few years ago the opposing party controlled both Houses and the Presidency? Would increased 'majoritarian' rule lead to better policies or worse? Perhaps we could have used a minority filibuster post 9/11 before the PATRIOT ACT, or during the jingoistic run-up to the Iraq War.

Finally, both sides have criticized the increasing usage of the filibuster during what once qualified as routine voting. This is commonly perceived as the creeping influence of partisan bickering, but perhaps it's a backlash towards a Federal system that accepts no limit on its reach and authority. What once occupied a great deal of debate, the constitutionality of a given bill or the appropriateness of federal involvement, is now usually brushed aside in favor of political expediency. Critics are correct to say our Founders never intended mundane actions from the Senate to require a 2/3 majority, but certainly they intended our Constitution to be amended as needed - not reinterpreted as convenient.

Without the guiding constraints of a strong Constitutional system there is no clear limit on what the Federal Government can and cannot do. When the side in power has the ability to enact legislation with massive ramifications the opposition will increasingly use obstructionist measures in lieu of debate and compromise.

Polls rarely seem to reflect reality

Public pissed off at Washington

A new NY Times / CBS News poll finds public approval of the Obama administration at an all time low. This is basically a continuation of the same trend it has followed for the past few months - mostly based on factors beyond Obama's direct control.

What I was drawn to was this paragraph in particular:

The poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as the prepare to face voters in November. Public disapproval of Congress is at an historically high level, and huge numbers of Americans think Congress is beholden to special interests. Fewer than one in ten Americans say members of Congress deserve reelection.

I think it's fascinating the dichotomy between the Public's negative perception of the Congress, and their willingness to re-elect incumbents. Voters claiming such HUGE dissatisfaction with Congress would be expected to turn-out incumbents at record numbers, yet I'm quite comfortable predicting the opposite will be the case.

We can look at 2008 as a reasonable comparison. A Gallup poll published in May, 2008 found Congressional approval ratings at 18%.

Congressional approval started off the year at a depressed 23%, then dipped to 21% in March and 20% in April, before reaching the current record-tying low. The 76% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/congress-approval-rating-ties-lowest-gallup-records.aspx

Not quite as bad as today, but still below 20%. Now what did we find in November? We know that Democrats took control of both houses, but how did the incumbents of both parties fare? Referring to Open Secrets - we find that in 2008 they did just fine - with 94% of incumbents securing re-election in the House and 83% in the Senate. Both in line with historical averages. In 2006, we find similar disparities - a 94% reelection rate, but 75% or higher disapproval.

The moral seems to be that the public has no idea what it wants. Or it's just lazy. It's awfully easy to complain about the performance of a distant government and it's very easy to blame leadership for circumstances they may or may not be able to control. Despite this discontent it seems, in general, voters don't have a desire to throw incumbents out.