Clinton's Running Mate - Analysis and Prognostications

It appears that Donald Trump has selected Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana, as his running mate.  Pence is a solid social conservative who may help assuage the fears of movement conservatives about Trump's policies.  While I'm disappointed that my science-fiction-loving, history-writing, jowl-shaking favorite, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, didn't make the cut, Pence was a strong choice, especially against more questionable figures like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (too much like Trump, not conservative enough) or Iowa Senator Joni Ernst (too inexperienced, not enough name recognition).  He'll bring a sense of stability and experience to the ticket, even if he lacks Newt's erudition and pizzazz.

So now we turn our attention to Hillary Clinton's vice presidential search.  Secretary Clinton indicated that she would wait to make an official selection after Trump's decision was finalized; with the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia just a little over a week away, look for her to make a decision soon (possibly during the Republican National Convention next week in Cleveland).

I'm not as steeped in Democratic Party politics to the same extent as the Republican Party, and even there I'm mostly wading in the shallow end of the pool.  That being said, the Democrats seem to be experiencing the same internal power struggle as the Republican Party.  Just as the Republican Party consists of various factions (broadly falling into the "establishment" and Tea Party sections, and now with a new Trumpist element, although the real breakdown is far more complicated than these categories), the Democrats increasingly seem divided between Clinton-style corporatism--a cozy relationship between government and certain key firms--and social progressivism and economic socialism.

"...Democrats exercise amazing party unity...."

The latter group gained a powerful voice in the form of (formerly Independent) Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, who went from polling around 4% last summer to losing only narrowly to Clinton in the Democratic primaries in June.  Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren also represents this aggressive, progressive, economic populist wing of the Democratic Party, and both Sanders and Warren have had Clinton running further to the left than normal.

Unlike Republicans, though, national Democrats exercise amazing party unity, and once a nominee is selected, they tend to stick doggedly to their party's pick.  This discipline applies, at least, to elected officials; voters, of course, often don't demonstrate the same degree of party loyalty.  For example, there is the so-called "Bernie or Bust" group (much like the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary crowds), some of whom are breaking for Trump over Hillary.  However, I expect most Democratic voters will "hold their noses" and vote for Clinton, just as many Republicans will do for Trump.

"[Hillary Clinton] is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment."

Much like Trump, then, a lackluster Clinton campaign potentially has much to gain from a prudent VP pick.  Whereas an unscripted, shoot-from-the-hip Trump was probably wise to pick a more established, reliable, mildly boring figure (as Dinesh D'Souza said on Sean Hannity's radio show Thursday, Trump went for "white bread" over the spicier Gingrich), Clinton may benefit from an unconventional running mate.  She is the living embodiment of the Washington elite and insider establishment, having lived in a cossetted world of taxpayer-funded luxury for most of her adult life.  A scrappy outsider could be her best bet, and could throw some red meat to the Democratic Party's increasingly progressive base.

On the other hand, Clinton may want to double down on her establishment bona fides, making the argument that her campaign is the "serious" one that will maintain the status quo and incrementally advance progressive pet projects like a higher minimum wage and "free" college (among other taxpayer-funded goodies).

The tight-lipped smile and beady eyes of vice-presidential contender Senator Tim Kaine.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Kaine,_official_113th_Congress_photo_portrait.jpg)

***

So, who are Clinton's potential nominees?  Here's a list, pulled from this article at CNN.com:

1.) Virginia Senator Tim Kaine

2.) Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

3.) Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

4.) Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack

- Honorable Mention:  Labor Secretary Tom Perez

- Wild Cards:  Housing Secretary Julian Castro and California Congressmen Xavier Beccerra

Most of the reading I've done (and, admittedly, it's not much) indicates that Tim Kaine is the likely choice.  He certainly seems to be the safe choice--he's generally inoffensive, experienced, and bilingual--but that might not be the best move for Clinton.  While the CNN article linked above indicates that the Democratic base isn't as important this time around, that assumption is premised on Bernie Sanders's endorsement.  It appears that endorsement was fairly hollow, if consistent with the Democratic Party's strong party discipline.

What about a Clinton-Warren ticket?  Clinton could double down on the "historic first" aspect of her campaign--pretty much her only real selling point--saying, "why not elect the first female Vice President, too"?  But how much would that benefit her, really?  It would neutralize a potentially powerful opponent to Clinton's left, and Warren has a demonstrated ability to fire up crowds, but her fiery, socialistic rhetoric ("you didn't build that") could hurt Clinton with moderate voters.

At one point there was quite a bit of buzz around Julian Castro and his brother, both of whom seemed to be Hispanic Obamas--young, dynamic, ethnic, hip--but that possibility appears unlikely.  Indeed, most of the rest of the names on this list appear to be cabinet members in a Clinton administration, but not running mates (except possibly Tom Vilsack).

"...Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964:  the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs."

It's unwise, however, to underestimate the power of identity politics to the Democratic Party.  While the Republican Party is historically made up of three factions--national security conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives--the Democratic Party is a vast hodge-podge of clients looking to government to serve as their patron.  This phenomenon explains why Washington, D.C., has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it could first vote in 1964:  the bureaucrats want to keep their jobs.

With so many clients--and with the odious racial balkanization pushed by far left groups like Black Lives Matter, et. al.--any Democratic administration and presidential ticket has to perform a delicate balancing act of patronage to appease the myriad factions demanding a seat at the table.  Clinton's VP pick will be a part of that broader calculation.

***

Who do I think Clinton will pick?  I have no idea.  I've heard talk of a Clinton-Sanders reconciliation ticket, but that strains credulity.  I get the impression the two can barely stand each other, and Clinton needs someone younger to step into the presidency in the event that her health problems worsen.  An elderly, bitter socialist is probably not the best person to have one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Tim Kaine does seem like the kind of blandly conformist, minimally inoffensive pick Clinton would make.  More importantly, he doesn't threaten her in any way, and she could safely ignore him for four or eight years.  I don't think she'd have that luxury with Elizabeth Warren.  I also suspect that Warren has her eyes on the White House herself, and might hold back for a run in 2020 in the event of a Trump victory.

Regardless, I can guarantee that Clinton's pick will be calculated and focus-grouped to nth degree to benefit her electoral prospects as much as possible.  For Republicans, let's hope Mike Pence takes debating lessons from Newt Gingrich before the Vice Presidential Debate this autumn.

Third Party Opportunity?

This election cycle, both major American political parties nominated figures with low likeability and favorability in most polls.  Many hard-left progressive Democrats despair that their party nominated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they view as a political chameleon and corporatist.  Similarly, some Republicans, both of the movement conservative (such as National Review) and establishment (think Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) varieties, are dismayed that GOP voters elected Donald Trump as their party's standard-bearer.

The question, inevitably, is "why not a third-party candidate?"  Indeed, the Libertarian Party saw a doubling of registrations after Trump secured the Republican nomination in May.  A number of dissatisfied progressives are turning to Jill Stein, perennial favorite of the Green Party (more interestingly, a significant minority of Bernie Sanders supporters are morphing into Trump fans).  If both major political parties have such negative figures at the helm, why not reject both and vote for a third party?

I received an e-mail today from a student with exactly that question.  Rather than discuss Hillary Clinton's vice-presidential picks--a topic I'll save for Friday, and which I need to research further, anyway--I'd like to address this young man's questions.  Note, this student is the same precocious young man who e-mailed me about Brexit last month.

Here's a screenshot of the e-mail, with a transcript:

 

Kids say the darnedest things.

Transcript:

With the somewhat radical left and right candidates in the major parties, how is Libertarian Gary Johnson not capitalizing on the 1/3 of independents and the rough 1/6 of soft Rs and Ds. He is somewhat centralist, having a neutral point of view and usually agreeing with the US population in policy issues. So far he hasn't garnered enough points to be in a debate, however with his support in the west, he is the former Governor of New Mexico, he might be in one soon. If Gary is able to get on the floor and be seen as the middle ground between Hillary and Trump, do you believe he could actual contend for presidency or would he just get walked over. Also, if he does garner some electoral votes come November, what candidate would he hurt the most? 

My L'il Politico brings up some interesting points, though I imagine there are many Democrats who would disagree with his assessment of Hillary Clinton, who strikes me as a chameleon who shifts policy positions with the wind; if she's part of the "radical left," it's only because that seems to be what the Democratic base wants.  Regardless, why hasn't Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered more attention, or done better at seizing the squishy middle of American politics?

"...Gary Johnson... won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes."

There are a number of possible explanations.  As I've already stated, there was a brief surge for the Libertarian Party after Trump's nomination.  Of course, Trump received his own bump in the polls, a typical occurrence once a candidate has won his party's nomination nod (Clinton similarly benefited from the nomination bump in June).  I imagine that, while there was an initial boomlet for the Libertarian Party, traditionally Republican or Republican-leaning voters have gotten used to or come to terms with Trump's nomination, and are naturally returning to familiar (if somewhat altered) waters.

That, of course, would only partially explain why Gary Johnson--or any third-party candidate--won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes.

Third-party candidates suffer a number of disadvantages in the American presidential system, most of them structural.  Unintentionally, our Constitution contributed greatly to the creation of the two-party system, a system which has endured, with only temporary interruptions, for most of the nation's history.  Despite George Washington's warning against the formation of political parties in his Farewell Address, the two-party system was almost an inevitability.

For one, most States require a simple majority for a candidate to win elected office.  Unlike Britain's "first past the post" system, which allows the candidate with the most votes to win a seat in Parliament, most States require an actual majority (50% + 1), and will hold run-off elections accordingly.  In effect, then, a third-party candidate of any significant ability or recognition only really succeeds in sucking votes away from the candidate he is most akin to politically.

In presidential elections, it is possible for third-party candidates to win electoral votes--just ask Theodore Roosevelt, who won twenty-two electoral votes in 1912, beating incumbent President William Howard Taft by sixteen votes, but losing hugely to Woodrow Wilson--but it is similarly difficult even to receive a plurality of votes (as I understand it, a "first past the post" plurality is all that is necessary in most States to win all of those States' votes).  Again, third-party candidates tend to wound candidates that are most similar to them on issues, or (in the case of TR in 1912) they completely supplant one of the major party candidates, only to go down with the ship.

 "[T]he two-party system was almost an inevitability."

Just look at the example of Ross Perot in 1992, a kind of spiritual predecessor to Trump in many ways.  Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, and while Perot won millions of votes nationally, he didn't pocket a single electoral vote.  He did, however, drain just enough votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush to ensure that then-Governor Bill Clinton could win the States necessary to secure the presidency.

One can look at multiple examples from US history:  the Populist Party in 1892 (in 1896, they wised up, nominated the Democratic Party's nominee, William Jennings Bryan, and still lost to the Republican candidate, William McKinley); the Socialist Party in 1920 (Eugene V. Debs won a million votes--from prison); the Progressive Party; and on and on.  Third parties are victims of their own failure, too--voters vote for and donate to perceived winners far more than to perceived losers.

Historically, only one party has successfully moved from third-party status to two-party dominance--the Republican Party--and that was in the throes of the 1860 election on the eve of the Civil War, which saw the Democrats split into two (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) and the formation of the Constitutional Union Party.  In such an environment, it was much more likely for an upstart Republican Party (only six years old at the time) to win the presidency, and the Republican Party benefited in part from the infrastructure left behind by the old Whig Party.

"Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties."

Also, an important point that's easy to forget (the political establishment certainly did over the past year) is that political parties are broad coalitions, and they tend to reform internally or experience revolutions from within.  They are not monolithic, Stalinistic organizations (most of the time), and they strive (often with difficulty) to appeal to and to appease multiple interest groups.  These groups often coalesce around a shared set of values (for Republicans, it tends to be limited and/or efficient government; for Democrats, it tends to be an elaborate system of patron-clientele payouts to wildly disparate interest and identity groups), but there's never perfect unity.

Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties, although the Republican Party is certainly receiving more of the attention due to the nature of Trump's over-the-top personality and bombastic antics.  Notice, however, that Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party at large) has moved much further to left, especially as the progressive, social justice warrior wing of the Party has become louder and more aggressive.  In turn, that move to radical social justice has alienated many economic Democrats, who turned either to socialist Bernie Sanders, or to protectionist Donald Trump.

So, despite the low favorability ratings, Trump scratches an itch (as I heard one political pundit put it recently) that many Americans want scratched, even if many others are cautious of him.  Similarly, many voters view Clinton as a crook, a liar, and crony, but they feel safer voting for the devil they know than the one they don't.

***

But what of poor Gary Johnson, the lovable, doobie-smoking former Governor of New Mexico?  Surely he can fill the vacuum of dissatisfied voters who don't like either option, right?

Perhaps, but for the reasons listed above, it's very unlikely.  Johnson was an effective governor in New Mexico (he apparently vetoed more than even former SC Governor Mark Sanford), but since then his biggest claim to fame is that he talks openly about smoking pot (legalization, of course, is a big issue for the Libertarians, as it is for a growing segment of the Republican Party).  Like many libertarian-minded candidates (Mark Sanford, again, comes to mind), Johnson comes across as a bit of a weirdo.  There's no doubt he's an eccentric fellow.  Should this disqualify him from the presidency?  Probably not, but, again, voters respond to emotion and perception more than to policy or positions.

 

The face of a man who won't be President.

(Image Source:  https://johnsonweld.com/)

The Libertarian Party itself is a party for the dissatisfied--that's essentially why it formed in the early 1970s, when it had legitimate beefs with President Richard Nixon's heavy-handed imperial presidency and tendency to expand the size and scope of government--and the dissatisfied voted for Trump this year.  Trump has brilliantly co-opted the libertarian momentum that in years past went to Congressman Ron Paul or his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

This fact confirms for me a long-held suspicion:  despite grand talk of ideological consistency and purity, the Libertarian Party consists, rather, of large numbers of disaffected weirdos--much like the two major political parties--that care more about presenting a certain Ayn Randian "I-am-really-the-smart-one-here" attitude than anything else.  I've rarely met a serious, consistent libertarian.  Most hard-core libertarians I've known are positively insufferable (I've experienced this phenomenon with self-described philosophical existentialists and nihilists, too), or they're really just progressives:  they want total freedom to engage in society-killing activities but become all-too willing to use the power of the state when it suits their purposes.

For better or for worse, many of these individuals have moved to support Trump or Sanders.  But could squishy voters in the middle who aren't traditionally Libertarian move to the party?

Again, I think not.  Most of these voters will stick with what they know.  A few will move from one to the other of the two major parties, and a very small few will vote third party as a protest or as a legitimate act of conscious.  Those that want to give a middle finger to "The System"--a description that fits my perception of most self-described libertarians--are going to vote for Trump.

***

But what if Gary Johnson does well enough in the polls to get on-stage at the presidential debates?  That's a possibility, although I don't think it's likely at this point for the reasons stated above.  If he does, it would certainly help his profile, and he would likely win over some voters--especially those that lean Republican, or believe the Republican Party has left them behind by nominating Trump--but not enough to win.  It would certainly be healthy for the body politic to hear another set of ideas.  Regardless,  I would be surprised if Gary Johnson won any electoral votes in 2016.

However, in this scenario it's very likely that he could suck enough votes away from Trump that a Clinton victory would be assured.  Trump--or any Republican--has a very fine line to walk in the Electoral College, where the Democrats automatically enjoy a huge advantage thanks to California, New York, Illinois, and several other high-population, deep-blue States.  Trump needs to win several Midwestern Rust Belt states and Florida to have a shot; that shot disappears with a mildly interesting, somewhat conservative third-party candidate.

All that being said, I respect those third-partiers who are deeply committed to their organization, or who believe they must vote for a third party as an act of conscious.  Fortunately, our political system affords us this freedom.  However, the most effective way to impact political change is within the traditional two-party system.  Parties can be changed from within; after all, they are made up of normal people.  With a little dedication and a lot of hard work, people can use the structural advantages of the established parties to push for their views and beliefs.

In other words, why reinvent the wheel, when the wagon's already moving?  Hop on board, and have a say in where it's heading.

Trump's Running Mate - Analysis and Prognostications

On Friday, I dashed off some reflections about the office of the Vice President, and promised a run-down of those on Donald Trump's alleged "short list" of potential running mates.  Today, I offer up my take on these possible picks, and offer up some predictions.

Here are the candidates I will explore today:

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence

- Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

- Wild Card:  Lieutenant General Michael Flynn

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - Christie was the first major Republican presidential candidate to endorse Trump after suspending his own campaign shortly after the New Hampshire primary.  As a conservative, I've always had mixed feelings about Christie:  I know I shouldn't like him, but I do.  In his exchange with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul in the first GOP debate last fall, I thought Christie came off looking like a responsible adult concerned with national security, while Paul appeared petulant and childish.  My libertarian readers will disagree with this assessment vehemently, and Christie's style might not sit well with some, but I think Christie won that exchange, and was very effective in addressing the American people, not just his opponents on stage.

Nevertheless, I would argue that a Trump-Christie ticket would be doubling down on too much New Yorker/New Jerseyite brashness.  Christie failed as a candidate because Trump stole his thunder.  There were two loud, brassy Northeasterners on stage, and Trump was the more entertaining and, for many voters, compelling of the two.  Christie would certainly bring strong prosecutorial chops to a debate--and a Trump administration--but such a heavily Northeastern ticket could turn off conservatives who might be wary of a Trump presidency as it is.

Here's a piece arguing that Christie should be the VP:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-donald-trumps-best-choice-for-veep/

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton - I don't know much about Cotton, although I did hear him speak at the 2016 Silver Elephant Banquet (no, it's not a Republican strip club--it's the annual fundraising dinner for the South Carolina GOP).  I had to slip out early, but I was not too terribly impressed.  What he lacked in on-stage chutzpah, however, he makes up for with a strong, attractive background:  admirable military service, a tenacity in Congress, and youthful energy.  Cotton would appear to fulfill for Trump what Paul Ryan was to Mitt Romney:  a young, dynamic, wonky guy who could eagerly assist his older commander-in-chief.

"...[M]ost voters... vote for emotional, rather than rational, reasons."

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst - Similarly, I don't know much about Ernst, so I can't say much.  Like Cotton, she's a rising star in the GOP.  Her primary appeal seems to be that she's a woman.  To be clear, I abhor identity politics--no one should ever vote for a person simply because that person is a certain race or gender--but I've heard the argument that "Trump struggles with women, so he needs a woman VP to show he's not a cad."

Political pundit Dick Morris has made this case for months (he pushed for New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as a VP pick before Trump dissed her), and it's an interesting approach:  essentially, Trump's VP would be part of a public political "marriage," and Trump would show women voters that he does treat women well, by doing so with his female running mate (in this case, Ernst).

That might not be too flattering to women--who strongly favor Hillary Clinton over The Donald--but there is some wisdom to it; after all, most voters (not just women!) vote for emotional, rather than rational, reasons.  If the ploy worked, it could help Trump shore up his numbers among the fairer sex.

But what of Joni Ernst herself?  She's only been in the Senate two years; before that, she served a brief stint in the Iowa State Senate and as auditor for her home county in Iowa.  All that being said, her Senate run in 2014 was ingenious, and she's a huge star in some quarters of the conservative movement.  Like Cotton, she has an admirable record of military service (she's the first female combat vet to serve in the Senate); like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, she's proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service.

Nevertheless, it might be wise to let Ernst gain more experience in the Senate.  Trump's camp could probably use a more seasoned hand to reassure voters that there's a steady hand at the helm.

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (full disclosure:  I voted for Gingrich in the 2012 South Carolina primaries) - Newt was an early Trump apologist (if not outspoken supporter), and I think he probably "gets" Trump the most of any of the folks on this list.  Speaker Gingrich would bring to the Trump ticket the experience and policy knowledge it lacks, but without losing its slightly crazy, unpredictable, outsider edge.  Gingrich, in other words, provides the perceived benefits of the establishment without really being a part of it (even though he probably is).

Gingrich also approaches problems in unique ways--you've got to love a politician who counts Isaac Asimov's Foundation series as a major influence on his thinking--and is a fierce, knowledgeable debater.  His debate performance in a South Carolina Republican primary debate in 2012 pretty much won him the state, although he flamed out in Florida after vowing to have a functioning lunar research facility on the moon by the end of his second term.

And that's Gingrich's biggest flaw as a running mate:  as the man who would be the steady hand of the Trump campaign, Gingrich is not always predictable.  This could be a strength--a "doubling down" on the Trump formula--but it could also prove problematic for messaging in the general election.

Still, wouldn't you like to see a vice-presidential debate between Newt Gingrich and Elizabeth Warren?

The Jowls of an Angel

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#/media/File:Newt_Gingrich_(6238567189)_(cropped).jpg; Attribution:  Gage Skidmore)

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence - Like Cotton and Ernst, my depth of knowledge about Pence is relatively shallow, although I know he has a reputation as a solid and effective governor in the State of Indiana.  Indiana is probably the reddest of the Upper Midwestern states, a crucial belt with swing states like Ohio.

Pence on the ticket would be the straight-man to Trump's pantheric chameleon, and would provide a great deal of stability to the campaign.  Pence strikes me as a less-embattled version of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (my initial favorite in the GOP presidential primary field before he dropped out of the race)--blandly inoffensive, a bit boring, but effective at bringing together the disparate factions of the fraying Republican coalition.

Pence could also help in a part of the country where blue-collar Democratic defection is crucial to swinging states to Trump.  Trump's electoral strategy seems to depend upon driving up white male voter turnout, and he's popular among those voters who have been hit hardest by globalization.  If enough of these "Trump Democrats" vote Republican, Trump could edge out wins in key states.

Of course, does Trump need a figure like Pence?  Pence's name recognition is not huge outside of the Midwest, and he doesn't seem to fit Trump's style.  That could be a useful contrast, but it could also deflate some of the excitement around Trump's campaign.  Controversial polemicist and die-hard Trump supporter Ann Coulter argues this very point in a recent piece for Human Events, "My VP Prediction:  Trump's First Mistake."

For further reading, here's a pro-Pence op-ed:  http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/07/05/donald-trump-vp-search-mike-pence-rings-most-bells/86719122/

- Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions -Senator Sessions is the poster-boy for stopping illegal immigration, but also for limiting legal immigration, a stance that was rare in both the Republican and Democratic parties prior to Trump's candidacy.  Ann Coulter argues in the piece linked above that Trump needs Sessions to stay in the Senate for precisely that reason.

For much of American history, having a Southerner on the ticket was often crucial to presidential victory, especially for Democratic candidates.  I don't think that holds true anymore (although Clinton and Gore were both Southerners, if you count Arkansas and East Tennessee as "the South").  The consistency of Southern states is such that vice-presidential candidates can be from further afield; if anything, it seems prudent to have a Midwesterner on the ticket.

Regardless, Sessions would be a good pick for the anti-globalist and immigration reform sides of Trump's campaign.  He would also provide some of the senatorial dignity that Trump lacks.  Alternatively, Sessions's rhetoric against globalization and immigration could be too much for some voters.  The GOP is already going to be slammed (I think unfairly) as "nativist" and "xenophobic," so maybe that doesn't matter, but perhaps an ounce of prevention could save a pound of troubles later.

- Wild Card - Lieutenant General Michael Flynn - As I predicted in my last post, Trump has thrown out a wild card.  Apparently, he's heavily considering bringing on a retired general, even against the advice of his advisors (either a sign of his "let Trump be Trump" media savvy, or a bad move on his part; we'll see).  One name he's floated is that of retired Lt. General Michael Flynn.  Flynn is a registered Democrat who the Obama Administration forced into retirement due to his (accurate) characterization of the threat of radical Islamism.  There's plenty there for Republicans to like.

Generals seem to do really well as presidential candidates, but have a spottier record when running for veep.  Consider, for example, Ross Perot's running mate, Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, who's enigmatic utterances and strange campaign demands proved to be almost as big a liability to Perot's run as his own withdrawal and re-entrance in 1992.

Still, we can't judge the success or prudence of a military figure based on one example.  Trump could certainly benefit from having a general on the ticket, which could lend credence to his "speak loudly and carry a big stick, but don't use it too often" brand of foreign policy.  Trump is clearly positioning himself as the candidate of law and order, and he hopes to be the pro-military candidate, too.

***

These are my (admittedly unstructured) reflections.  I do not think this list is exhaustive, and I suspect it's almost a form of misdirection.  I would not be surprised if Trump pulled out a candidate that none of us suspect, al a John McCain with Sarah Palin in 2008 (though hopefully not quite so disastrous).

If this list is the One True List, I'd personally be very interested to see a Trump-Gingrich ticket.  The dynamism of such a ticket--Trump as the ever-jabbing pugilist, Gingrich as the precision bomber--would surely keep the Clinton campaign on its heels.  It would also lend Trump some credibility, but with a guy who's also just a little bit crazy himself.

Regardless, the next two weeks of VP speculation should be fun.

Now:  who will Hillary Clinton pick to be her running mate?

Preview: The Vice Presidency and Trump's Potential Running Mate

Normally, I prefer to write about "big picture" topics--what is popular sovereignty?  Why is America exceptional?  What are the core American values upon which our nation is founded?--because they tend to possess timeless qualities.  I also teach a philosophy course from time to time, and I believe that ideas--as the great Richard Weaver put it--have consequences.  Ideas shape and affect us, I would argue, far more than individuals or even large institutions.  It's a bold claim, I concede, but it makes sense when you consider individuals, institutions, and even nation-states and empires are motivated not just by rational Realpolitik, but also by ideas and values.

More practically, focusing on these broader, evergreen topics generally shields me from the pitfall of making bold predictions that turn out horribly wrong (although my post-Brexit predictions post has already been proven so:  it appears Boris Johnson will not be running for leadership of the Conservative Party, much to my chagrin).

That being said, on Monday I'm going to give a quick run-down of some of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's potential vice-presidential picks, then share my own thoughts.

But first, a word about the vice-presidency (here comes the "big picture" stuff):  the vice presidency is one of the most enigmatic offices in our constitutional system.  Constitutionally (and historically), the vice president doesn't do much.  His sole constitutional duty (other than monitoring the space-time continuum) is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, which he does in his capacity as the President of the that chamber.  In fact, prior to the passage of the XII Amendment in 1804, the vice president was simply the candidate who won second place in the Electoral College (imagine an Obama Administration with Mitt Romney as VP).  It almost seems like the office was an afterthought (it wasn't--someone's got to take the president's place if he dies--but the second-place-becomes-veep rule did not anticipate the emergence of the two-party system).

John Adams famously hated the vice presidency (it probably didn't help that Senators derisively called him "His Rotundity"), primarily because it was boring.  He was the first to realize the vice presidency is the "consolation prize" of politics, and for most of American history it was where political careers went to die.  Only in the second half of the twentieth century did it become the stepping stone to the presidency that it is today (that stepping stone used to be Secretary of State, and it may prove to be so again).  Indeed, Theodore Roosevelt's Old Guard Republican rivals in 1900 hoped he would become President McKinley's new VP because it would get the troublesome progressive out of real power!  No one dreamed that McKinley would die from an assassin's bullet only a few months into his second term.

John Adams:  He ain't heavy--he's my Founding Father.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams)

(Note:  the famous Jay's Treaty scene from the HBO mini-series John Adams, in which Adams cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to ratify the controversial treaty, was completely fabricated.  Treaties require a 2/3rds vote to become the law of the land, not a simple majority.  Therefore, it would be constitutionally and numerically impossible for a vice president to ever cast a tie-breaking vote on a treaty; indeed, he would have no right to vote at all.  The writers for the show just wanted to create some high political drama, showing Adams making a tough, unpopular choice for the good of the country.  They did so to the detriment of history and constitutional literacy, and unnecessarily--there were plenty of real instances from Adams's life that demonstrated his nobility and selflessness.)

As the power of the presidency expanded throughout the twentieth century, however, vice presidents began to assume more active roles, primarily as a sort of substitute diplomat or pinch-hitting cabinet member for the president.  Richard Nixon, for example, worked as a sort of diplomatic envoy to Southeast Asia during President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.  Now vice presidents routinely travel the country and the world, giving speeches and making appearances on behalf of their respective presidents.

"John Adams famously hated the vice presidency... because it was boring."

For all that, the office is rarely of huge significance in any electoral sense, but it can matter.  Candidates often pick their running mates to shore up real or perceived deficiencies in their own campaigns.  To wit:

- Then-Senator Barack Obama (like John F. Kennedy), for example, chose seasoned Senator Joe Biden (as Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson) to address concerns that he lacked the depth and experience to run the country.

- Ronald Reagan chose his primary opponent, George H.W. Bush, as a sign of reconciliation and to hold together the Republican coalition of 1980.

- Even Abraham Lincoln engaged in this game:  his first VP, Hannibal Hamlin, was picked because he was ferociously anti-slavery; his second VP, Andrew Johnson--a pro-slavery, pro-Union Democrat--was chosen to appease the so-called "Peace Democrats" in the North.

***

So, what about Trump's potential picks?  I would caution that we should take his so-called "short list" with a grain of salt.  I suspect that, in true Trump fashion, he's engaging in a great deal of misdirection, and will announce a surprise candidate at the Republican National Convention.  However, I have no real evidence to support this contention--that's why it's a "suspicion," not a theory--so I'll ask that we take him at his word.

For the purposes of Monday's post, then, let's consider his five potential choices (I realize there are others to whom Trump has alluded, but I'm sticking with the ones I've read about most frequently):

1.) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

2.) Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton

3.) Iowa Senator Joni Ernst

4.) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

5.) Indiana Governor Mike Pence

Honorable Mention:  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

I'll go through these candidates one by one (and make additions or subtractions based on any developments over the weekend) and give my shoot-from-the-hip analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, and secret desires (well, maybe not that last one).

Tune in Monday!

The Land of Plenty--Thanks to Capitalism

Americans celebrated the Fourth of July this past Monday.  For European readers (apparently, I get between two or three French readers every day--merci!)--or people living in progressive enclaves in the cities or up north--allow me to explain how our Independence Day celebrations work:

- Tons of food:  As will come as no surprise, Americans love to eat.  What better way to celebrate the bounteous blessings of freedom than by consuming copious amounts of barbecue (pulled pork, of course, preferably mustard- or vinegar-based)?

- Fireworks:  We like to blow stuff up (not the way radical Muslims do--we do it for fun, or to protect the weak and defenseless).  Note that we are the land of glam metal and Kid Rock.  Again, what better way to celebrate prosperity than by exploding lights in the sky, all choreographed to the strains of "Rock Me Like a Hurricane"?

- Family:  Despite the rapid growth of children born out of wedlock, and increased rates of co-habitation (and decreased rates of marriage), we Americans still honor the importance of family as the building block of any productive society.  Families also instill the values of a nation, and are the incubators of the kind of self-government and personal self-control that are the cornerstones of a free people and a free republic.

There are, of course, many other reasons to love the Fourth of July--great weather, awesome parades, bald eagles--but what makes all of this celebrating possible?  How is it that even the least-fortunate Americans are able to enjoy a hot dog and fireworks on the Fourth?

 

Sure, it's not South Carolina pulled-pork, but I'd eat it.

(Source:  http://www.public-domain-image.com/free-images/food-and-drink/barbecue-grilling-food/porterhouse-steaks-grilling-barbecue-grills-meat)

The answer is the prosperity made possible by our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration clearly sets forth the right of all humans to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  The "pursuit of Happiness" is no idle phrase or call to hedonism; rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him, so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of other free men.

The Constitution--which Abraham Lincoln called the "frame of silver" around the "apple of gold" of the Declaration--provides the legal and institutional framework to safeguard liberty.  The Constitution is also, as free-market economist Milton Friedman once said, the "rules" of the economic "game."  Not only does it protect the rights of individuals against the power of the state; it also spells out how individuals can pursue happiness by limiting the government's ability to jury-rig the economy in support of favored or well-connected interests (at least, that's how it's supposed to work).

The Constitution establishes an incredibly flexible economic framework that strictly limits congressional power to a few areas.  In other words, the Constitution enshrines a (lightly regulated) free market capitalist system.

Capitalism--when supported by a pro-growth government, protected by rule of law and the courts, and sustained by a free and responsible people--has done more to improve human life than any other economic or political system ever devised.  When China adopted free market reforms in the 1980s, it transformed from a massive, impoverished nation that experienced widespread famine and low productivity throughout the Maoist years into an economic powerhouse.

(China's continued reliance on corporatist schemes and non-representative authoritarian rule, however, has finally caught up with it; China will either become more free politically, or more repressive and, therefore, less productive; my bet is on the latter.)

 "The 'pursuit of Happiness' is no idle phrase... rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him."

Capitalism works so well that we occasionally seem to enjoy too much prosperity.  Throughout history, people have struggled against hunger.  Now, people in the Western world struggle to lose weight.  We often see the worst cases of obesity among the poorest members of society.  What kind of system creates so much food, at such a low cost, that it actually makes poor people fat?

For that matter, capitalism has created so much wealth, we can now afford to pay more money for food that is produced less efficiently.  The very hipster-elites that decry capitalism and "systems of oppression" at Bernie Sanders rallies can only enjoy their trust-funded non-GMO, organic, pesticide-free kale salads because capitalism gives people the ability to choose to eat these foods (for what it's worth, I'm on an all-GMO, factory-farm only diet).

Imagine transporting an American from 1933--during the Great Depression, and not even 100 years ago--to 2016.  He would be dumbfounded to find poor Americans struggling with fatty diets, and skeptical to witness the spiritual descendants of the New Dealers pushing for limits on the size of Coke bottles he could purchase.  He would also be blown away by the massive diversity of goods and services available (like the two-liter bottle of Coke).

Capitalism is not perfect.  It depends upon a fair and predictable legal system, and a people committed to self-control and self-government.  If anything, capitalism creates so much luxury that people become unwilling to do the work necessary to maintain their comfortable lifestyles.  It also creates enough wealth to shield its beneficiaries from poor decisions and bad moral choices, the costs of which are shifted to responsible citizens.

Nevertheless, capitalism is vastly preferable to the alternatives, and for every layabout there are dozens of eager upstarts ready to try something new.  To continue to enjoy its fruits, we must recommit ourselves to personal self-control, self-government, and moral instruction.  Otherwise, we'll party ourselves into perdition, all the way voting ourselves "free" goodies from the public treasury, because the prosperity we've earned will been seen as a "right," not a privilege.

Let's avoid this fate.  Let's exercise a little self-control--and demand it of our elected officials, too.  Then let's eliminate confusing, onerous regulations and once again unleash the creative potential of 330 million Americans.  That's a recipe for long-term happiness.

Happy 240th Birthday, America!

Today the United States of America celebrates 240 years of liberty.  240 years ago, Americans boldly banded together to create the greatest nation ever brought forth on this earth.

They did so at the height of their mother country's dominance.  Great Britain emerged from the French and Indian War in 1763 as the preeminent global power.  Americans had fought in the war, which was international in scope but fought primarily in British North America.  After Britain's stunning, come-from-behind victory, Americans never felt prouder to be English.

Thirteen short years later, Americans made the unprecedented move to declare their independence.  Then, only twenty years after the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that ended the French and Indian War, another Treaty of Paris (1783) officially ended the American Revolution, extending formal diplomatic recognition to the young United States.  The rapidity of this world-historic shift reflects the deep respect for liberty and the rule of law that beat in the breasts of Americans throughout the original thirteen colonies.

America is founded on ideas, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and given institutional form and legal protection by the Constitution.  Values--not specific ethnicity--would come to form a new, distinctly American nationalism, one that has created enduring freedom.

***

Rather than rehash these ideas, however, I'd instead like to treat you to the greatest political speech ever given in the English language.  It's all the more remarkable because it continues to inspire even when read silently.  I'm writing, of course, about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  Here is the transcript (Source:  http://www.gettysburg.com/bog/address.htm):

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth. "

 ***

The Gettysburg Address is elegant in its simplicity.  At less than 300 words, it was a remarkably short speech for the time (political and commemorative speeches often ran to two or three hours).  Yet its power is undiminished all these years later.  President Lincoln was only wrong about one thing:  the claim that the "world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here" has proven untrue.

I will likely write a deeper analysis of the Address in November to commemorate its delivery; in the meantime, I ask you to read and reread the speech, and to reflect on its timeless truths.

God Bless America!

--TPP

To read different versions of the Gettysburg Address--there are several versions extant--check out this excellent page from Abraham Lincoln Online:  http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm.

The European Union is NOT the United States

Post-Brexit (yes, yes, I know I promised on Wednesday that I'd be moving away from Brexit posts, and you'll soon find I wasn't lying... completely), I've heard several arguments that boil down to "the European Union is good because unity will make Europe stronger.  Just look at the United States!  It was a mess under the Articles of Confederation, but came together to become a world power under the Constitution."

The comparison is tempting and not without merit.  Certainly, the United States benefited greatly when the sovereign States ceded some of their power--such as that over the coinage and printing of money and defense--to the national government.  Putting the power to regulate interstate commerce eliminated the practice of States placing different tariff levels on British goods, for example, and aided in the creation of of a common national market.  The formation of the Supreme Court, and the subsequent creation of the federal judiciary under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, allowed States to adjudicate disputes more fairly.  Why couldn't Europe achieve the same "more perfect union" with its goal of "ever closer union"?

"American nationalism derives primarily from a shared set of ideas."

Unfortunately for Europhiles, the comparison breaks down quickly upon closer inspection.  There are three key areas of difference between the United States and the vision of a "United States of Europe":  common language and culture; a common legal tradition grounded in the rule of law; and a legacy of representative, democratic-republicanism.  The young United States possessed these three qualities; modern Europe lacks them.

The first point--common language and culture--will be a contentious one.  There are myriad, if predictable, objections:  Americans came from many sources, not just England;  colonials expanded into territories that either belonged to American Indians, or to European competitors (notably the Dutch and the Swedes, but also the Spanish and French); settlers to different parts of British North America came from different cultural and religious groups in the British Isles; and so on.  Indeed, German almost became the official language of a young United States.

I discussed the ethnic and religious diversity of colonial and early republican America at some length in my essay "Created By Philosophy," and previously argued that American nationalism derives primarily from a shared set of ideas (in "American Values, American Nationalism").  However, despite this vivid and ubiquitous diversity, English culture and values ultimately became the overwhelming norm in British North America, and morphed into a distinctly American identity in the 18th century (though one that was, until independence, decidedly English).  English may not be the constitutionally official language of the United States, but it is the lingua franca of the nation (and the world), and has been so for centuries.  Every wave of immigrants (until relatively recently) has understood that mastery of English is a prerequisite to long-term success in and assimilation to American culture.

English Protestantism--infused with Scottish Calvinism and German piety--was a unifying force in the colonies.  When the First Great Awakening hit in the late 18th century, it cemented America's culture, even as it spawned multiple new denominations.  The ultimate denominator, however, was a broadly Protestant Christian worldview (one that gradually and unevenly came to tolerate, and then to accept, Catholics, Jews, and believers and non-believers of all stripes).

"English Protestantism... was a unifying force in the colonies."

The story of America, ideally, is that of unity within a culture that values diversity of viewpoints, but insists upon an acceptance of a basic, common, Judeo-Christian morality; thus, "E Pluribus Unum."  That morality, in turn, informs the legal system, one descended from centuries of English common law.  Respect for the rule of law--the notion that no man, even the king, is above the law--guided the English people toward increasing freedom.

 

Evangelist George Whitefield knew how to preach to the masses of British North America, and he had the hair to prove it.

(Image Source:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Whitefield_(head).jpg)

So, too, did it lead Americans to their independence.  The American Revolution--and the various conflicts between colonial assemblies and royal governors--of the 18th century in many ways echoed the struggles between Parliament and the Stuart monarchs in 17th-century England.  Americans did not revolt because they rejected bad tea or because they resented taxation--they revolted because they weren't represented.  Americans did not have a say in the taxes that were (not unfairly) levied on the colonies to help pay for the French and Indian War (the similarities to the Leave campaign should be obvious).  Rule of law was circumvented, and Americans would not abide such a trampling of their rights

Thus, we come to the English--and then American--commitment to representative rule.  The United States really took the lead here, though Great Britain began expanding the franchise and reforming parliamentary representation in the 19th century as white manhood suffrage became the norm in Jacksonian America.  (Here's a fun aside:  there used to exist parliamentary seats that represented places with no people in them.)  Regardless, the notion that the people should be represented in their government--and should be able to hold it accountable with fair, free, and frequent elections--is an important part of America's constitutionally-limited, representative, federal republic.

Europe as an entity lacks all of these qualities.  Yes, certain members states have some of these qualities to varying degrees, but the European Union as a whole is sorely lacking in these areas.

- Culture and Language:  The United States had the unique opportunity to create a nation afresh.  Europe has had no such luxury, and seems to be inexorably divided into different languages and cultures.  This division is not necessarily bad, but it makes unity much more difficult.  It explains the natural struggle against "ever closer union," a struggle that is often visceral because people sense there is something artificial and disingenuous about the Europhile vision of a united Europe.  There are, after all, still traditionalists living (and voting) throughout Europe.

 "[S]ecularism is the new, unifying religion of Europe."

The long, oft-ancient histories of these nations makes it even more difficult for them to share a common worldview.  Even secular, progressive Europe still experiences the lingering cultural effects of centuries of faith.  France might have thrown out God with the French Revolution, but the "First Daughter of the Church" is still suffused, albeit in a subtle, weakened way, with centuries of faith.  Such a faith culture, even hollowed out, will naturally, if imperceptibly, struggle to  reconcile itself with that of other, contradictory traditions.

I suspect this explains why the European Union seems hell-bent on advancing as many socially progressive causes as possible:  secularism is the new, unifying religion of Europe.  But there will always be push-back against this dehumanizing, nihilistic vision of man's place in the universe.

Language, too, transmits the ideas and values of a people.  I am no linguist, but--unlike French theorists like Jacques Derrida--I believe that words have power and transmit meaning.  Such meaning is deep, part of the warp and woof of life.  Why else would educated societies devote so much time to learning and analyzing language and literature?  There's no need to read Shakespeare if you just want to a basically literate workforce.  No, there must be some power in language.  Linguistic diversity, therefore, is a beautiful thing, but it also means that different cultural values are transmitted differently throughout Europe.  No one associates Russian, for example, with greater freedom and sober living.

But I digress.

- Rule of Law:  Of course different nations in Europe have rule of law (except Belarus).  The European Union, however, does not.  Yes, it might have European law, but this law is promulgated by an unelected committee of elites, figures who don't identify strongly with their nations of origin, but rather with a vague, secular-progressive idea of Europe, one that barely tolerates dissent or input from the people.  Furthermore, how does one reconcile, say, French civil law with English common law?  The deep divisions of history are huge hurdles to overcome.

- Representative Government:  As I've stated many times, the European Union is not representative.  That's why the Brexit vote was so important, and why it has drawn so many comparisons to the American Revolution:  the normal people of Britain rose up against an unelected, unaccountable elite and boldly proclaimed their right to self-determination.  Brits seized back the ability to hold their elected leaders accountable.

The elite, Europhile vision of a United States of Europe is one of non-representative, coerced redistribution.  Give the proles bread and circuses, and they will submit on bended knee to the edicts of Brussels.  Remember, the "Remain" side of the Brexit debate was primarily premised on maintaining access to EU goodies, not about the people's ability to choose such a course.

Nothing could be further from the vision of America's Founders and Framers.  They possessed a healthy skepticism about unbridled democracy, but recognized that the people were the source of government's authority; that the people govern themselves most effectively; and that the people should be able to hold their leaders accountable.  Yes, liberty comes at a price--many prices, in fact.  One of those is the ever-present risk that the people will make mistakes.

Inevitably, they will.  But a common, tolerant culture; a shared respect for the rule of law; and an understanding of the rights and responsibilities of republican government will guide voters to wisdom more often than folly.

Self-government does not always fit neatly into the schemes of elite technocrats and busy-body regulators.  But it ultimately makes for a happier, freer, and more prosperous society.

Life after Brexit: Reflections and Predictions

I spent about two hours crafting a long, detailed explanation about my predictions for what will happen now that Brexit has won.  Unfortunately, my magisterial masterwork was unceremoniously deleted as I tried to update a quotation from an op-ed penned by National Front party leader Marine Le Pen (I'm sure my progressive friends, who will instantly dismiss anything coming from Le Pen's, er, pen as racist and xenophobic, will consider this some form of poetic justice).  So, rather than try to recreate that effort, allow me to phone in something quickly so I can get to sleep:

- Markets:  Markets have been, and will continue to be, roiled by the news of Brexit.  However, the Brexit vote--as I've argued repeatedly (here, here, here, and here)--was never about economic concerns.  The only argument the Remainers had, however, was fear:  fear of economic turmoil, fear of extreme nationalism, fear of a trade war, fear of losing benefits.

Progressives are inherently materialists.  They never can understand why humble folks--many of whom were the beneficiaries of sweet EU largess--would "vote against their economic interests."  This confusion results from both a failure to realize that redistribution of wealth ultimately harms everyone, including the beneficiaries thereof; and possession of a purely materialist worldview, that sees other concerns--religious belief, thirst for liberty, personal convictions--as illusory at worst and cynical at best.  The progressive inevitably projects his own material cynicism on those he criticizes.

(For a beautiful and uplifting description of the importance of democracy and its link to traditional Christianity, check out this post from the blog Archbishop Cranmer, entitled "Brexit, the Bible and Democracy:  The Judgment of God is the Voice of the People.")

Once the terms of the UK's exit are negotiated and the "new order" is established, markets will stabilize.  My hope is that the Brits will use this new birth of freedom as an opportunity to clean regulatory house at home; having weaned themselves from the teat of European goodies, they will continue by declaring independence from their own heavy regulations and taxes.  I believe Great Britain is facing an historic moment akin to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, which saw Britain restore liberty, as Parliament regained power from the state-run industries and the illiberal trades unions.

- Great Britain:  The two major political parties--the Tories and Labour--are experiencing internal upheaval.  The "Leave" side won Brexit because a substantial number of working-class Labour voters broke rank and joined about half of the Tories to achieve victory.  Labour's Bernie Sanders-esque leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is facing a vote of no-confidence. His 70s-style, statist socialism was out of step with Labour as it was.

 

Euroskeptics:  Good Policy, Bad Barbers

(Source:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Boris_Johnson_July_2015.jpg/800px-Boris_Johnson_July_2015.jpg)

On the Conservative side, Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to step down.  I predict (and hope) that Boris Johnson will become the next PM, and take charge of Brexit negotiations.

What of the United Kingdom Independence Party?  I initially thought UKIP would begin to fade, having achieved its singular mission of the past twenty-five years:  to get Britain out of the the European Union.  That was, however, until I saw Nigel Farage's uproariously funny (and spot-on) speech before the European Parliament.  Soak in the sweet boos as the globalist elites watch their utopian schemes implode before their very eyes.  Farage's speech is the kind of brash victory lap that would make him a star among movement conservatives in the United States.  I don't think we've heard the last of him.

- The European Union:  There will be other referendums--unless German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with support from France and Italy, clamps down.  There is already talk of stepping up the pace of "ever closer union," with the EU establishing a European Army and further eroding national sovereignty of its members.  If the EU gets an army, it will finally be able to accomplish by force what it has so far only been able to do through economic coercion and trickery:  create a European superstate that tramples both national sovereignty and democratic checks on unbridled power.

I hope there will be referendums in many more countries; I suspect there will be at least in the Netherlands and Poland.  Poland is heavily Catholic and traditional, and is naturally wary of Germany consolidating power.  Its worldview does not fit neatly into the progressivist schemes of the European Union.

"If the EU gets an army, it will finally be able to accomplish by force what it has so far only been able to do through economic coercion and trickery:  create a European superstate that tramples both national sovereignty and democratic checks on unbridled power."

Look for Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, to continue to gain ground in France.  Le Pen has done much to purify the party of her father's anti-Semitism and blatant racism.  There are those that argue that the party is still xenophobic, and that its rhetoric now is merely a "dog-whistle" to closet racists.  This strikes me as inaccurate.  It would be akin to arguing that the Democratic Party in the United States is still racist because it supported first slavery and then segregation, the latter as recently as the 1960s.

Here are some choice excerpts from an op-ed Le Pen contributed to The New York Times, entitled "After Brexit, the People's Spring is Inevitable":

"British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom....

"One thing is certain: Britain’s departure from the European Union will not make the union more democratic. The hierarchical structure of its supranational institutions will want to reinforce itself: Like all dying ideologies, the union knows only how to forge blindly ahead. The roles are already cast — Germany will lead the way, and France will obligingly tag along."  (Emphasis added)

 

 Is Frexit Next(it)?  Not if Germany has anything to say about it.

(Source:  http://ian.macky.net/pat/map/fr/fr.html)

As the sinking ship of the European Union takes on water, watch for it to grow increasingly tyrannical in its flailing desperation to remain afloat.  Perhaps pressure from Eastern European members will help aright the ship and move the EU toward reform that allows national sovereignty while maintaining more appealing aspects of the organization, such as the free trade zone.  However, the Eurocrats in Brussels will not give up their posh, secure jobs and their cosmopolitan lifestyles so easily, much less their incredible power over the peoples and (semi-)sovereign states of Europe.

The peoples of Europe and the United States fought two world wars in the last century to prevent an imperial and fascist Germany from ruling the Continent for a reason, and European Realpolitik has been premised on a balance of powers since 1815, and really as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.  A supranational United States of Europe, at least as conceived by progressive Europhiles, is unsustainable and unworkable given the cultural, linguistic, and economic diversity of Europe.  Free trade between free nations is wonderful; coerced and artificial unity through heavy-handed, undemocratic edicts is the height of tyranny.

Cold Turkey

Last week, approximately 52% of Brits voted to "Leave" the European Union in a national referendum.  They did so peacefully and democratically.  Already, 23 June 2016 is being hailed as Britain's "Independence Day."

I've written several posts about Brexit recently (here, here, and here).  Last Friday's post, which I wrote as the results were coming in Thursday evening, explored why liberty--a vote for "Leave"--was worth the price of temporary economic disruption and, too, of giving up certain "benefits" bestowed to EU citizens.

(A quick aside:  I still find it interesting that a supranational organization that originated as an economic free trade zone evolved into an entity capable of forcing twenty-some-odd nation-states to pool sovereignty; didn't Europe fight two world wars to prevent Germany from ruling the Continent?  But I digress.)

Based on several comments on my Facebook page, and from personal conversations, it seems that some of my pro-Remain friends and colleagues missed this point, or very candidly admitted that national sovereignty and liberty are not worth the price of sweet EU bennies (one colleague--a reluctant Brit--discounted the entire "Leave" campaign as fundamentally xenophobic and racist, implying that those alleged qualities alone invalidated the entire movement).  To the latter contingent, I can only hope we can agree to disagree.  To the former, allow me to address some points.

"[D]idn't Europe fight two world wars to prevent Germany from ruling the Continent?"

One poster discussed at length that Brits have "become VERY accustomed to the benefits," and that, whether they are in the EU or not, they "will still be governed, regulated, and heavily taxed by their own government but no longer enjoy the goodies that come with EU membership!"

Consider, if you will, a drug addict.  Let's say someone addicted to heroin seeks treatment and begins taking daily doses of methadone.  Would we say, "Oh, well, sure he's off heroin, but he's still chemically dependent on methadone, and now he's missing out on the sweet high that only heroin can provide"?  Or would we continue to encourage this recovering addict to kick his methadone habit, too, and restore a sick, dependent body to healthy independence?

Quit me cold... and don't let me in the European Union.

(Source:  http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=28721&picture=turkey)

Generous government benefits--whether they come from the EU or the British government--might come with some nice "perks" (every pro-Remainer I've talked to seems preoccupied with the ability to travel freely through Europe, something most of us plebes haven't had the luxury of doing without a passport; this, to me, seems to be the definition of a "First World Problem"), but those "goodies" come at a price.  The British people have freely said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Naturally, there will be those who will start jonesing for cheap travel opportunities to economically depressed parts of Southern Europe, where they can live out leisurely, government-funded retirements.  There will also be everyday people who still find themselves frustrated by high taxes and tight regulations, and missing out on certain opportunities afforded them by EU membership.

"The Brits have thrown off one level of bureaucracy because... they realized it was not worth the cost."

But is the solution more regulations and higher taxes?  The Brits have thrown off one level of bureaucracy because, despite the redistribution of wealth it brought (which mostly went away from productive countries like Britain and Germany and to profligate nations like Greece), they realized it was not worth the cost.  One of two things will now happen:  either Brits will demand further deregulation and reform of their own government, which will further ease their burdens and lower costs; or they will make an oft-repeated mistake and demand more redistribution and more taxpayer-funded goodies.

Crucially, though, the choice will be theirs to make.

Leaving the European Union will be like tearing off a bandage.  It will hurt like hell initially--we're already seeing the effect on markets, which can't stand uncertainty--but the pain will be fleeting (as I've argued in my earlier posts on the topic).

Similarly, any nation facing heavy regulations and stifling taxes can pursue a similar course--if it hasn't become too hooked already.  "Austerity" failed in Greece not because it demanded that the Greek government stop paying janitors wages comparable to skilled tradesmen; it failed because the Greek government couldn't kick its habit (and because austerity required tax increases, not stimulating decreases).  The nation--and the Greek people--have become so dependent upon handouts, they can no longer function without huge bailouts from wealthier nations.  That dependency will only perpetuate the cycle of addiction.

The best approach is not more dependency--more bureaucracy, more social programs, more taxes--but quitting cold turkey.  Rip off the Band-Aid, then get back to being free... or end up like Greece.

(Some parting notes:  to shield myself from slander and libel, let me make it clear that no xenophobia is intended or implied--I hope the Greeks can lift themselves out of poverty, which would be much easier if Germany had let them leave the European Union a year ago.  In this Wednesday's post, I'll discuss what might happen next now that Britain has voted to leave the EU.  That will likely be my last post on Brexit for awhile, as we return to the American scene.  --TPP)

Economics: A Human Science

If you've read my blog the past couple of weeks, you know that I am strongly in favor of Brexit, or Great Britain voting to "Leave" the European Union.  I've laid out my reasons here and here.  As I write this post, results are trickling in on that historic vote, and I am intermittently checking them with great interest--and not a small bit of trepidation.  Right now (about 10:30 PM EST/-5 GMT), "Leave" has a slight edge, but the outcome is too close to call.

Already, though, the British pound and the euro have taken a beating in value, as gold prices soar (this blog is conservative in viewpoint, so I probably should start urging you to buy gold, guns, and freeze-dried food reserves; source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/pound-surge-builds-as-polls-show-u-k-to-remain-in-eu-yen-slips).  One of the major bogeymen of the "Remain" side in the referendum was the threat of economic downturn.  As I conceded in both of my previous posts on Brexit, there will no doubt be major economic disruption should Britain vote to "Leave."  However, a (likely temporary) drop in the value of the pound sterling is a price well paid for restored national sovereignty.

 

God Save the Queen... and Great Britain from the clutches of Eurozone bureaucrats

(Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_pound_(British_coin))

As conservatives, we're accustomed to viewing economics--or, at least, economic growth--as a positive good.  After all, we believe in the power of free markets to satisfy human needs and desires, and to innovate new ideas and products that alleviate human suffering, drudgery, and toil.  Conservative politicians tend to focus on job growth and prudent deregulation--often coupled with tax and spending cuts--as perennial, bread-and-butter issues that directly affect voters' pocketbooks for the better.

 "...these [fiscal] policies are not about making gobs of cash... but about what those gobs can do to improve lives."

But economics, like much else, is not a means unto itself.  The reason conservatives like economic growth--besides, well, making money--is that it demonstrably improves people's lives.  Deregulation, similarly, can work beneficially (if you doubt me, just ask anyone who has ever dealt with the Affordable Care Act and the Department of Health and Human Services).  In essence, these policies are not about making gobs of cash--although that is certainly nice--but about what those gobs can do to improve lives.

Thus, we have a stark contrast between the organic, healthy, occasionally unpredictable economic growth of a free market and the regimented, inequitable, limited economic growth of progressive corporatism.  Our current economic environment, I fear, is far closer to the latter than the former.  Complex, heavy regulations benefit larger firms and discourage the formation of smaller, newer firms by raising the upfront costs of entry.  Perverse incentives raise the costs of healthcare for young, fit Americans, while making it unrealistically cheaper for older, sicker, chubbier patients.  Overly-generous social safety benefits (some of which, like the food stamp program SNAP, the government actively advertises and encourages people to use) discourage able-bodied Americans from pursuing work.

I could go on (and on... and on).  In short, conservatives are used to being correct on principle and on economic outcomes.  Typically, conservative fiscal policies align with, rather than try to manipulate, economic realities, so the outcomes of those policies tend to be both principled and positive.

"As fiscal conservatives... let us never lose sight of the human side of economics."

In the case of Brexit, however, the quest for restored sovereignty--a stand on an important first principle--will result in some negative economic outcomes.  A major argument of the "Remain" side is that staying in the European Union will preserve Britain's economic stability and ensure it a place in a European common market.

Such an argument is seductive, but it leads to a gilded cage.  Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously said that economic freedom is a necessary precursor to, though not a guarantor of, political freedom.  With Brexit, the axiom is almost reversed--by reclaiming its political freedom, Britain will then be able to pursue renewed economic freedom.

As fiscal conservatives--or those that support free markets, freer trade, and light regulations--let us never lose sight of the human side of economics.  We too often treat economics as a science.  Instead, it should find a home alongside the humanities.

Our chief aim should be to unleash human potential.  So liberated, its creativity and ingenuity can lift human life to greater heights.

We already have a model:  we've been doing it in the United States for over 200 years.