Ted Cruz - Conservative Hero, or Traitor to His Party?

On Wednesday, 20 July 2016, Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in which he congratulated his primary opponent and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on his victory, then urged voters to "vote your conscience" in November.  Boos filled the arena.

What convention delegates were booing was not the admonition to vote their conscience--for many of them, that means voting for Donald Trump--but the lack of an explicit endorsement from Senator Cruz to endorse Trump.

 

Ted Cruz - not the Zodiac Killer, but almost in as much trouble.

(Image Source:  By Frank Fey (U.S. Senate Photographic Studio) - Office of Senator Ted Cruz, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25195114)

Immediately, two camps formed:  the majority pro-Trump camp, and the dwindling minority of Never Trumpers.  Within the former there are, broadly, two groups:  die-hard Trump fans, who have supported the candidate since last summer; and more tepid supporters who have given their support to Trump because they support their party's nominee, they won't support Hillary Clinton, they support elements of Trumpism, or some combination of the three.

The latter camp--I suspect--will continue to lose momentum now that the nomination process is complete.  Some of those voters will reluctantly vote for Trump for fear that a Clinton presidency will irrevocably shift the Supreme Court toward constitutional adaptavism and judicial activism.  Some will vote third-party, probably for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, or not vote at all.  A very small minority will vote for Clinton.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?

How these two groups have interpreted Cruz's speech is predictable.  For the pro-Trump/party unity crowd, they see Cruz's non-endorsement as a traitorous, duplicitous swipe at the nominee and his supporters, someone who went back on his word to endorse the winner of the primary process.

For the anti-Trump side, Cruz is a hero who stands on principle, even in the face of overwhelming pressure from his party to support explicitly the GOP nominee.  They argue that his pledge to support the candidate became null and void when the Trump campaign attacked Cruz's wife, Heidi, and insinuated that his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?  To what extent should a voter temper his principles for the sake of political advantage, expediency, or compromise?

These are difficult questions, and they did not start with the 2016 election cycle.  Movement conservatives were frustrated, for example, with the 2008 and 2012 GOP nominees.  They perceived Arizona Senator John McCain and Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney, respectively, as being inconsistently conservative.  Some conservatives refused to vote for those candidates; many did.  Some voted for them enthusiastically, reasoning that their flaws were better than accepting the progressivism of President Barack Obama, or changing their thinking to align with the candidates.  Others did so more reluctantly.

***

(Full disclosure--and a disclaimer:  I voted for Senator Cruz in the 2016 South Carolina GOP primary.  The analysis to follow does not represent an endorsement or criticism of Senator Cruz's speech or positions, but rather is an attempt--as fully as possible--at an objective analysis of the reasons for his position, and the consequences of it.  Angry advocates of both sides take note.)

So, which is it?  Is Ted Cruz a hero of the conservative movement, standing on principle at the expense of party unity?  Or is he an opportunistic traitor to the Republican Party?

It's a tricky question, and both sides have merit.  The pro-Trump majority is broadly correct that, having committed to endorsing the ultimate nominee, Cruz should hold up that endorsement, as many other Republicans have done, if reluctantly.  Take, for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, but also been quick to criticize the nominee when his statement's violated Ryan's principles.

"...while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself."

On the other hand, Cruz in no way denigrated Donald Trump, or even suggested that voters should not vote for him.  Given in any other context, his speech would have received uproarious applause and plaudits from conservatives.  It did not explicitly fulfill his pledge to support the nominee, but it did not seek to criticize or harm the nominee overtly.

Lost in this debate--and in media coverage of the Cruz incident--was one of the best moments of party unity and statesmanship, which came when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started his speech by saying, essentially, that Senator Cruz had encouraged voters to vote their conscience for the candidate most likely to uphold the Constitution.  As Gingrich put it, the only viable candidate for president who would plausibly do so is Trump.

Some may object that Newt's entreaty was a neat verbal trick, or point out the possibility of voting third-party (though Gary Johnson isn't viable), but it demonstrated his ability to think on his feet and his skills at diplomacy.  He was able to restore some sense of decorum and unity to the proceedings.

In short, while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself.

***

That gets to another question, one that I think is equally interesting:  what, if anything, did Cruz hope to gain from this speech?  Some will say it was free of any political motivation, but that seems unlikely.  Call me a cynic, but I think Cruz has his eye on the future.

I suspect--and, naturally, I could be very wrong--that Cruz is setting himself to win over the support of conservatives who either won't vote for Trump, or will vote for him with deep misgivings.  He's also looking for those voters who are becoming more enthusiastic about Trump, but have lingering feelings that they've had to talk themselves into liking the candidate a bit too much.  If anything goes majorly wrong in a Trump presidency, these voters may turn to Cruz in four or eight years.

Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins in November, Cruz will cast himself as the principled conservative who took a stand when the overwhelming force of his party's opinion pressured him to do otherwise.  In the event of a Clinton victory, Cruz will attempt to win the GOP nomination in 2020.  In the event of a Trump victory, Cruz is betting on Trump making enough mistakes that enthusiasm for him sours, and in their hour of need, Republicans will say, "this was the man with the wisdom to resist."  That's a much tougher path, as it is extremely difficult to challenge successfully an incumbent president for his party's nomination.

In both cases, it's assuming an awful lot, and if the reaction at the Quicken Loans Arena Wednesday night is any indication, Cruz miscalculated badly.  But politics is a fickle mistress, and the political scene could look very different in four years.

***

Will Cruz's speech galvanize the dwindling Never Trump forces?  Or will he spur more conservatives to support the party as a rallying cry against him?  Will he be blamed for splitting the party if Clinton wins?  Or will his gambit pay off, with voters of some distant election year seeing in him a man of principle?

These are interesting questions; ultimately, they are for the voters to decide.

Music is for Everyone

On the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made the grandest entrance in American political history (as far as I know):

Pageantry.

(Video Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/the-biggest-winner-of-mondays-gop-convention-was-donald-trumps-amazing-entrance/)

Whether or not you love The Donald, hate his guts, or would rather watch reruns of The Celebrity Apprentice, surely we can all unite in acknowledging that his entrance was freaking amazing.  Heck, even The Washington Post thought it was cool.  I was watching alone in my not-so-portly bungalow and began hooping and hollering like a silver-backed gorilla.

Substantive?  No.  Reason to vote Trump-Pence this November?  Hardly.  An awesome display of pageantry?  Heck, yes.

 

 The Mustache of a Champion.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury#/media/File:Queen_1984_0009.jpg; Attribution:  Thomas Steffan)

The showman in me--I am, after all, an over-the-top indie musician with delusions of grandeur--had to share my elation with the world.  No thought can be left unsaid these days, so I took to Facebook.

Here's my Facebook post, and the exchange that is the subject of this piece:

A bitter progressive rains on a parade before taxing and placing racial quotas on it.

Here's a transcript:

TPP:  Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, his entrance at the Republican National Convention just now was EXACTLY how I would have done it--striding in to the strains of a Queen song as a podium rises from the floor. Holy crap...

Bitter Progressive:  Trump opens a party convention that features a platform heavily biased against marriage equality and gay rights by strolling on stage to a song written and performed by a gay man who died of AIDS.

I'm not sure which is stronger, the 2016 GOP's innate knack for unintentional self-parody ("The national seal should include an AR-15!") or its total obliviousness to the concept of irony.

TPP:  Maybe a good song is just a good song.

BP:  The cool thing about music is that there's ALWAYS something deeper.

TPP:  Listen to my EP and you'll learn otherwise. :D

(Note how I cleverly defuse the bitterness with self-deprecating humor that also doubles as shameless promotion for my debut solo EP, Contest Winner EP, available now on iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, and elsewhere.)

For a post about a major political party's convention and controversial nominee, it was probably the least possible political statement I could make... except that, in our present age, everything is politicized.

"Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment."

A quick aside:  I'm going to ignore the "unintentional self-parody" and the GOP's "total obliviousness to the concept of irony," except to ask the following:  how exactly is a political party supposed to acknowledge irony?  Do kill-joy progressives want Donald Trump to say, "Okay, okay, that was awesome, and I'm up here to introduce my wife, but first let me acknowledge that 'We Are the Champions' was written by a gay man, so let's take a moment to check our privilege and reconsider our platform's plank on same-sex marriage"?  I suspect that, even if he did, there'd be a slew of "too little, too late" articles on HuffPo the next day.

(And let me quickly take a moment to acknowledge the irony of writing a post lamenting excessive politicization on a blog that basically has "politics" in the name.)

***

So, let's unpack the first paragraph of Bitter Progressive's first post.  He complains that Trump entered to a Queen song, because the Republican Party platform supports traditional marriage, and Freddie Mercury was gay.  While BP intends this statement to be a slam at the GOP--and as a way of virtue-signalling his own support for gay rights--he essentially reduces a talented musician to one dimension, one personal trait.

I wish homosexual Americans all the best, but I, too, question the wisdom of same-sex marriage.  Does this mean I can't listen to and appreciate Queen, simply because Freddie Mercury happened to be gay?  By this logic, I shouldn't associate with gay people at all, nor should the roughly half of Americans who vote Republican.

Aren't we supposed to reach out to people--regardless of their sexual orientation--and treat them with respect, even if we disagree?  How does demanding an effective ban on music by gay artists for half the population help bridge that gap (and what are Log Cabin Republicans to do)?  How does it increase understanding and tolerance?

"None of [Freddie Mercury's] other qualities matter... until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age."

It doesn't, and that's not the point.  Tolerance isn't enough; bitter progressives demand total acceptance, even celebration, of whatever happens to be their cause-of-the-moment.

The logic of BP's post also dehumanizes Freddie Mercury (and, by extension, all gay men).  No more is he a phenomenal, groundbreaking singer and songwriter.  Instead, he's defined almost entirely based on who he likes to sleep with, and in turn, our anachronistic opinions about whether or not Mercury can formalize that sexual relationship in a legal forum is supposed to dictate whether or not we are allowed to enjoy his music.  None of his other qualities matter--being a man, having an awesome mustache, possessing an amazing voice--until and unless they can be used as a convenient bludgeon to force conformity to the unforeseen priorities of a future age.

Another pop culture example:  I disagree vehemently with pretty much everything Lady Gaga has ever said or done.  Her live concerts are like modern-day Dianic rituals to some pagan fertility goddess.  She prioritizes sexual libertinism over all else.  But, damn if I don't like "Bad Romance"--and even "Born This Way," an (inaccurate) anthem for the gay rights movement.  Should I not listen to her music because I disagree with her political and social views (there are other, better, aesthetic reasons to do so)?  If BP had his way, I suppose not.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry... as a substitute for responsible self-government.

A more useful, valid critique of Trump's epic entrance would point out the danger to a free republic of falling for grand pageantry--"bread and circuses," as one of my colleagues put it--as a substitute for responsible self-government.  I'll admit that I loved every second of Trump's approach, but I'm not making an important voting decision based on a fifteen second stroll.  However, some people will love it too much, and make a decision based solely on pageantry.

That's a legitimate concern.  Freddie Mercury's sex life forty years ago--which magically makes "We Are the Champions," an incredibly politics-neutral song off-limits--isn't.

***

Music should be for everyone to enjoy (songwriters should, of course, retain the rights to their works, but that's not the issue here).  If we want to build a productive civil society--one with disagreements, but common respect--we shouldn't criticize one group for enjoying a song because of an incidental personal characteristic of the songwriter.  Some of my best fans are liberals and progressives.  Should I be offended that they listen to "Hipster Girl Next Door" even if it describes their lifestyle-liberalism to a tee (surely some of them fail to recognize the irony)?  Should they shun me from their slam poetry readings and drum circles because I don't think the government should pay for urine-soaked "art"?

Of course not.  Let's grow up and just let a good song be a good song.  Maybe we'll learn something while singing together.

In the Pickle Barrel - All Week Long!

Last summer, I appeared (most) every Tuesday on my friend Bill Pickle's daily podcast, In the Pickle Barrel, which airs Monday through Friday on American Patriot Radio.  I haven't been able to make my "Tuesdays with Tyler" segment this summer, and I've really missed the opportunity to wax political on the air.

 Get a good brine going.

(Image Source:  http://www.inthepicklebarrel.com/)

So when Bill contacted me a couple of weeks ago about guest-hosting while he's at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, I jumped at the chance.  This whole week (18-22 July 2016) I'll be hosting In the Pickle Barrel.  I've filled in for Bill before for a day here and there, but never for five days.  I feel like a less talented, less funny version of Mark Steyn.

Join me on air!  Call (605) 562-3140 and enter PIN 263151 all this week, M-F 8-10 AM. Listen LIVE at www.americanpatriotradio.com/apr-live.

What's on the agenda for the next week?  Here's a rough outline (subject to change):

- Monday - Let's learn about Mike Pence!  Also, who might show up in a Trump cabinet?  What's going down at the Republican National Convention?  In the second hour, we'll discuss the latest round of terror attacks in France, the recent shootings in the United States, and the coup in Turkey.  If you wish hard enough, Bill Pickle himself might call in with an update from Cleveland.

- Tuesday - We'll kick off the show discussing some core American values.  At 8:30, special guest Iva Reed joins the program to talk about her world travels, as well as her upcoming book on the impact of the War on Drugs.

- Wednesday - What's going down at the RNC?  We'll discuss during the first hour.  At 9 AM, we're joined by one of my former students, Jacqueline Lawson, who will discuss faith and missionary work in New York City.

- Thursday - Margaret Thatcher said that "Europe was created by history.  America was created by philosophy."  What does this mean?  We'll unpack this important quotation during the first hour.  ***UPDATE:  At 8:30, singer-songwriter Frederick Ingram joins the program to discuss music and politics.***  During the second hour, we'll go over the latest news from the convention and the world at large.

- Friday -  It's a Bill Pickle tradition:  Anything Goes Friday!  Call in at (605) 562-3140, then enter PIN 263151 to join the conversation.  We'll also review Trump's nomination speech.

So, there you have it.  I'll be back Wednesday with a full blog post about the Republican National Convention.

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.