Common Ground Between Progressives and Libertarians after Trump’s Election

The US election is finally over. And if we’re going to be honest with ourselves, some of the worst outcomes appear to have been averted. I don’t mean Hillary Clinton; I mean everything else. So first, let’s be grateful for some of the awful things that did not happen:

• The election results are not being contested by either candidate. Clinton hasn’t given an official concession speech yet, but according to Donald Trump, she did call him personally to concede.
• On a related note, there probably won’t be a recount. The margin of victory was large enough that the losing candidate couldn’t seriously push for a recount and extend uncertainty through the weeks to come.
• Neither Russia nor the Democratic Party were blamed for rigging the results
• Bonus: We didn’t further escalate tensions with Russia to distract from an unsuccessful campaign
• No major terrorist attacks, despite ISIS’s calls for violence
• The winning candidate didn’t rub salt in the wound with the acceptance speech. Instead of inciting further division, Trump’s acceptance speech focused on unity in the same way a conventional candidate would.

Seen in the context of some even worse scenarios, last night’s election outcome isn’t quite so bad. (Personally, I had my own bar for success set at “Just don’t nuke Russia”, so we passed with flying colors in my book.)

Now, the most important question is what comes next. For libertarians, that means emphasizing common ground with progressives.

An Olive Branch to Progressives

Progressives and libertarians are going to be natural allies against the Trump Administration. The basis for this alliance is intuitive. Principled libertarians have been opposed to the expansion of executive power all along, and Democrats and progressives are now acutely aware of the risks posed by an all-powerful President, even if they weren’t concerned previously.

Many people are about to find religion when it comes to the US Constitution, and libertarians should welcome them into the fold.

The scope of potential collaboration is extensive, but these three areas should be the top priority.

Stopping Intervention in Syria

In the general election, Donald Trump advocated a slightly less terrible approach to Syria than Hillary Clinton. Where she advocated a no-fly zone that would require bombing Syrian government troops (and the Russians that are embedded with them) and would likely lead to regime change, Trump usually* favored collaborating with Russia to defeat the terrorists and rebels. Thus, the choice voters had on Syria was, essentially, whether to intervene against the various terrorist groups (and the few remaining moderates in their midst), or intervene against the Syrian government (and de facto, on the side of said terrorist groups).

It was a depressing set of choices, to be sure. But with Donald Trump’s election, there’s an opening to push for complete nonintervention in Syria. Some folks on the left had acquiesced to Clinton’s version of Syria intervention on the grounds that they would actually be saving civilians from the Russian and Syrian bombardment. That premise was always dubious (and refuted by Clinton herself, privately). Now, it’s also irrelevant. Trump is far more likely to continue push a collaboration with Russia against the terrorist groups. And since Syria’s and Russia’s prosecution of the war is viewed understandably as brutal and inappropriate, it follows that progressives will not support it. Indeed, newly skeptical of Trump’s recklessness as commander-in-chief, progressives are likely to be much more open to opposing intervention altogether, as many did at the end of Bush’s term. This is also the correct position for libertarians.

There is no need to settle for the less awful intervention in Syria; Trump’s election creates an opening to halt the Syria intervention entirely.

*Trump occasionally paid lip-service to a no-fly zone during the campaign. But when his running mate tried to offer a Syria policy that included attacking Assad, Trump rejected it. Thus, his nominal support for a no-fly zone appears to be rooted in ignorance about what it actually entails.

The Drug War

Donald Trump made immigration a central theme of his campaign. And in making his critique of immigration, he would often emphasize drugs as one of the maladies of America’s porous southern border. This, combined with Trump’s common refrain of “law and order” are ominous signs for the Drug War under President Trump.

On the plus side, this is an issue where the Tenth Amendment has been used to great effect. This election alone, four more states voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use, bringing the total to eight states. This means eight states have restored their citizens’ rights to use marijuana, even though it is still illegal at the federal level; in essence, the states are openly defying federal rules and challenging the Feds to actually enforce them. Fortunately, the federal government has dedicated insufficient resources to do so and harassment of marijuana sellers in these legalized states has been limited.

Libertarians and progressives can continue working together to push legalization in even more states. This expands freedom directly in these states, and it is also likely to alleviate much of the drug flow across the border. After all, if it were legal to grow and produce in the US, there would be no incentive to try to smuggle marijuana across the US border, with all the risk that entails. In turn, this could reduce the perceived harm caused by illegal immigration and encourage Trump to pursue less draconian measures to address it.

Additionally, pushing marijuana legalization has the ancillary benefit of further normalizing the use of the Tenth Amendment to effectively fight an unconstitutional federal law. Since Trump is likely to pursue many more such laws, this may prove to be an invaluable tactic.

Immigration and Deportation

Deporting all or most illegal immigrants is a signature campaign issue for Trump. He has dithered on exactly who is on his list for deportations, but it is likely to be an increase over the present.

Whatever level of deportations Trump ultimately decides to push for, libertarians should be opposing the policy at each step. And this is another issue where the Tenth Amendment strategy is likely to be essential.

Here, it’s unlikely that there will be a legislative solution on a federal level that blocks widespread deportations. That would require some form of compromise and a Republican Party that controls both the legislative and executive branches probably won’t be terribly interested in making deals.

State-level legislation probably cannot directly challenge the legality of any deportation plan. But it can make the policy nearly impossible to carry out by prohibiting state-level law enforcement from assisting the federal government with deportations. The reason is that the federal government’s own resources are woefully inadequate for the task. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for example, has around 20,000 employees total, who would be potentially be charged with rounding up and processing 11 million people in the most extreme case. That can’t really be done, which is why states can sabotage a deportation policy by simply refusing to help. In the process, they would be following in the honorable tradition of northern US states that refused to comply to the Fugitive Slave Acts in the 1800s prior to the abolition of slavery.

Summary

The outcome of the US election is not ideal. If you’ve been following the election cycle at all, you knew that was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who won on Tuesday.

Today, many progressives are understandably horrified by the prospect of President Trump, and libertarians will be their natural allies in the effort to finally rein in executive power. As a result, Trump’s election is not a tragedy; it’s an opportunity.

Correcting the Record: No, Obama Is not Fiscally Responsible

When it comes to dishonest political shilling, one of my favorite examples is the argument that President Obama is fiscally responsible.

We haven’t heard this theme much lately, mostly because neither major party candidate expresses much concern about the debt or the deficit. But back during the primaries, MSNBC was overjoyed to run with the theme that President Obama reduced the deficit by $1 trillion. And naturally, this was framed in a partisan light–look how much more responsible President Obama has been compared to the reckless Republicans!

This is the chart they used to illustrate the point.

Not surprisingly, this same chart is likely to be thrown at any libertarian who criticizes excessive government spending. Because obviously, if one is criticizing Obama, they must have loved Bush? I don’t get it, but that’s how most people assume it works.

Anyway, although the original article made a silly mistake elsewhere, the central claim about Obama reducing the deficit was correct, as long as one granted some rounding.

But of course, we should always be skeptical when a dataset is restricted to an arbitrarily small time period. Why 8 years and not 10? Or maybe back to the beginning of the Bush Administration?

The answer is that, when viewed in larger time frame, President Obama doesn’t quite come off as a responsible and prudent steward of the budget. Here’s the full time line of annual deficits, for as long as the data has been recorded:

As you can see, every year of the Obama Presidency has produced a higher deficit than any prior year, except for the two years impacted directly by the Great Recession, 2008 and 2009.

Admittedly, the above chart isn’t entirely fair since it doesn’t account for inflation or the growth in the US economy. Thus, it is worth also considering this chart which shows deficits over time as a percentage of that year’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Here, President Obama comes out looking slightly better. His share of the graph (to the right of the final shaded recession) has deficits far smaller than those inspired by World War II, for example, and Obama’s record is also better than Reagan’s in some years. But incredibly, he’s still managing to spend more than the US did during the height of the Cold War in the 50s and 60s.

That said, perhaps the most authoritative argument against the “Obama is fiscally responsible” line is provided by simply completing the original chart from MSNBC, with the updated deficit for 2016.

In other words, President Obama’s progress on reducing the historically large annual deficits is now in reverse, registering at an unaudited $587 billion in 2016. And this latest deficit occurred at a time of record low interest rates (and thus low interest payments on the debt), in the absence of any major US ground war, and during a period when the US economy is allegedly doing fine.

One of these things doesn’t add up. But whatever else is true, the point is that President Obama certainly does not deserve praise for fiscal restraint.

The 2016 Election Is Destroying the Facade of Objectivity

The FBI’s controversial about-face on the Clinton email scandal shines a bright light on one of the most interesting features of the present election: the destruction of objectivity. Or rather, the destruction of perceived objectivity.

Background on Objectivity

When it comes to politics and government, objectivity doesn’t really exist. This isn’t the fault of corrupt politicians; it’s just the nature of the business. Indeed, the Founding Fathers even took this notion for granted. That’s why they endeavored to design a system of government where ambition was made to check ambition. They understood that government would not always and everywhere be populated by saintly individuals acting dutifully in the public interest.

But while our government is predicated on this idea–that government actors will not always be impartial and objective–we do not always remember it. Many Americans are inclined to believe that US governing institutions really are objective.

This is one way to understand, for example, why a larger segment of the population isn’t outraged by the lack of accountability for police brutality. What ought to be a straightforward question of justice and the rule of law falls along strange tribal lines. On one side, what we might call the Blue Lives Matter side, we have people that are essentially saying, “Trust the process”. These people buy into the idea of government objectivity in this area, and generally believe both that a) cops would not kill someone unless they had a good reason and b) the justice system is generally fair and would hold cops accountable if they deserved it. On the other side of the issue, we find people who no longer buy into the objectivity myth, either because a) they have a personal experience that disproved it or else b) they have just encountered too many stories of senseless injustice being perpetrated to still think the system is working fairly.

While actual progress on the police brutality has been slow in coming, libertarians and progressives are certainly making strides in the realm of public opinion. Of course, issues don’t figure prominently in this election cycle. But among the few issues that do get discussed, police brutality is near the top of the list. The reason this is even on the table is because the myth of objectivity has been substantially dismantled, and it now cries out for a solution.

Back to the Election

What horrifying YouTube videos did for police brutality, the 2016 election is doing for many other aspects of the US government and politics generally. Let’s run down the list:

The FBI

When FBI Director James Comey announced the findings of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private emails, the response was predictable. Republicans were outraged that such an alleged miscarriage of justice was done, and some even called attention to a questionable meeting Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, shortly before the decision, to cast further doubt on its legitimacy. The Republicans were openly suggesting that the FBI made a deal with the Democrats. Meanwhile, the Democrats were delighted to find their standard-bearer free and clear of any investigations, and hailed the FBI for its professionalism. Of course, they would. Even if they truly believed that, it was also in their partisan interest to do so.

Fast forward to Friday, and the narrative is completely reversed. This time, Comey wrote a letter to Congress to alert them that the Clinton email probe had been reopened in a way, as a result of additional emails being identified as part of an unrelated investigation.

Now it was the Democrats turn to accuse Comey of being a partisan hack.

So wait, the FBI Director’s decisions are only impartial when they agree with you? I don’t think that’s how impartiality works…

The reason this matters is that the FBI isn’t usually called into question quite like this. Depending on your perspective, it marks either a new low or a new high.

Too Big to Jail?

The FBI’s political leanings weren’t the only aspect of significance in the Clinton email case. One of the central questions in the scandal was whether politically powerful people will be held to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Comey’s memorable answer, was a resounding, if reluctant, no. Readers may recall these illuminating lines:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

…

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

He could have scarcely said it any more plainly. Yes, there’s evidence that laws may have been broken, but it doesn’t matter anyway, because no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case. Translation: Hillary Clinton is too powerful for the laws to be applied to her.

This is not without precedent either of course. Not prosecuting the politically-connected is a time-honored American tradition. It’s why Ford pardoned Nixon; it’s why Bush officials didn’t get prosecuted for the torture program, and it’s why Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suffered no repercussions for lying to Congress about the activities of the NSA. That said, it’s still rare that the episode garners this much attention.

The Fed
The usually obscure Federal Reserve hasn’t escaped accusations of partisanship or corruption this time around either. Though his own preferences on monetary policy are unclear, Donald Trump has made this a recurring talking point, once suggesting the Fed is being “more political than Secretary Clinton”.

The Elections

Even the elections themselves are being cast in a suspicious light in this election cycle, to a degree not seen in recent memory. Donald Trump’s narrative here focuses on media bias or alleged voting fraud schemes to distort the election outcome. Meanwhile, Clinton’s narrative is that Trump is a pawn of the Russian government, and thus she has alleged the Russian hacking apparatus has been trying to throw the election in his favor. The Obama Administration has also come out to offer a degree of legitimacy to the Clinton narrative by making direct, if oddly tentative, accusations of hacking.

Indeed, we face the very real possibility that, in one week’s time, the official election results will be contested. And either candidate might be willing to try this strategy based on the rhetoric we’ve heard to date.

Consequences for Liberty

What all of this means is that the 2016 election has offered a systematic assault on faith in government and the idea that the government is an objective, impartial actor.

For lovers of liberty, this circumstance represents an incredible opportunity. We already know that the proper attitude towards government is one of deep skepticism. Come November 9th, nearly half of the American electorate is going to agree.

US Calls for End to Saudi Strikes on Yemen, Sort Of

It appears the volume and magnitude of Saudi atrocities in the Yemen have finally reached a point where the US Administration feels compelled to speak out. This week, the US finally called for an end to the airstrikes in Yemen.

But there is a bit of a problem here. As Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz notes in his write-up:

A top Human Rights Watch director noted that the call would’ve carried a lot more weight if the US wasn’t providing the bombs the Saudis are dropping on Yemen in the first place, though former US officials say its almost certain this won’t include any dial back in US arms sales.

In Yemen as with other countries, the US government finds itself in a familiar untenable position. On the one hand, it would like to perceived as caring about defending human rights, and many officials probably really do want to protect human rights. But on the other hand, that same US government is actually enabling, if not directly causing, a vast array of human rights abuses at the same time.

And while it is good that the US may finally be backing away from the PR / diplomatic cover it provides for the War in Yemen, the rest of its support for Saudi Arabia is unlikely to change.

Here, one of the absurdities of the US alliances in the Middle East is laid to bare. Of course, one of the reasons provided to justify the US allying with a repressive theocracy like Saudi Arabia, or other unsavory states, is that we can use our leverage to induce behavior that is less destructive than it otherwise would be. But when we have a clear situation where this theory would appear to apply, the US does less than nothing.

Behind the latest tepid criticism, the spigot of aid and arms for the Saudi regime will continue flowing unabated. So the US condemns a policy and supports it simultaneously. In the logic of US foreign policy establishment, this makes sense. To the rest of us, it is and ought to seem crazy.

How Obama Made War Cool Again

Among the many objectionable features of Obama’s Presidency, perhaps none is more personally infuriating than his nearly total destruction of antiwar sentiment among those on the center-left.

If George H.W. Bush kicked “Vietnam Syndrome”–i.e. skepticism of military intervention–then President Obama overcame Iraq and Afghanistan Syndrome.

Back in 2008, after George W. Bush had just spent the last 7 years restoring war’s bad reputation with the American public, it seemed like self-respecting liberal supported war. And the reason was they seemed to have a realistic understanding of it. No, we won’t be greeted as liberators. Yes, American troops will die, along with scores of innocent local civilians. And by the way, we can’t afford it.

Obviously, this skepticism wasn’t dominant among conservatives. But it had taken hold among enough people in the center and on the left, that the 2008 election turned substantially on this issue. President Obama was the (relative) peace candidate, and he won largely on that basis.

But then the peace candidate became the forever war president. And in the process, he made aggressive war acceptable again–even allegedly noble, in some circumstances. 

Today, Iraq War 2 is still widely considered a disaster. And the absurd notion that US troops will be greeted as liberators is still out of favor. However, the quite similar concept of “humanitarian intervention” is somehow still respectable. More than any other single person, Presidential Obama is responsible for that.

And thus, he’s also the reason when I argue with friends on the left against bombing another country, the default counterargument is that I must lack compassion. Why, you don’t want the world’s most powerful military to bomb populated areas and create another failed state in the Middle East? Have you no heart at all, man?

Our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President is the root cause of these nonsensical exchanges.

Having said all that, fortunately not all Democrats and people on the left embraced the President’s new branding of war. And perhaps the most notable outlier was former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He didn’t switch to become pro-war when it became fashionable in his party. In fact, he tried to undermine the Democrats’ plan for war in Libya by negotiating a peaceful transition behind the scenes.

Today, he’s fighting against the bipartisan support for war, and he’s published an excellent op-ed at The Nation:

Why is the foreign policy establishment spoiling for more war? 

Don't Forget About President Obama's Scandals

In this election cycle, it’s been difficult to escape fawning pieces over President Obama and his legacy. They range from this lovely gusher from David Brooks from earlier this year, lauding President Obama’s character and leadership, to lamentations that Obama won’t be seeking a third term.

To be sure, I understand the place these articles come from–namely, fear of his likely successors. If pressed on the matter, I too would confess I’m marginally less terrified of President Obama than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. But this is an extraordinarily low bar. With just two weeks to go till this awful election is over, it’s easy to forget this.

The Brooks piece above offers perhaps the best exposition on President Obama’s alleged integrity. For instance, Brooks writes that, in contrast with administrations past, President Obama’s tenure has been  “remarkably scandal-free”. In a way, this is true. But it has less to do with President Obama’s actual merits, and much more to do with the fact that much of the media has redefined what constitutes a scandal.

As a reminder, these are just a few of the exceptional policies and actions President Obama has overseen. In The New York Times version, apparently none of them qualify as scandals:

• Assassinating an American citizen deliberately, without any semblance of due process.
• Assassinating that same American citizen’s son two weeks later, because he didn’t have a “responsible father”, in the words of the White House Press Secretary
• Waging an unconstitutional and disastrous war in Libya.
• Creating said failed state, which also paved the way for ethnic pogroms against black Africans
• Bombing a Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, for an hour, killing 40+ people
• Supporting an aggressive and disastrous War in Yemen to “placate the Saudis“, which continues to this day.
• And in general, asserting the right to wage limitless war, anywhere, with or without Congressional approval.
• With the help of US allies, backing the not-so-moderate rebels in Syria, in spite of internal US intelligence suggesting the policy was paving the conditions for a Salafist principality (i.e. something like the Islamic State).

Nope, no scandals there. An affair with an intern will lead to an impeachment trial. Throwing multiple countries into violent, deadly chaos? Not so much. Indeed, Brooks even suggests, apparently sincerely, that Obama “may have been too cautious, especially in the Middle East”. That’s right: the guy who bragged about bombing seven countries is just a bit too hesitant about using force for The New York Times.

At this point, you may be wondering why I’m bringing up a New York Times column from February eight months later. Admittedly, in part, it’s because I didn’t find the chance to properly rant about it at the time. And honestly, there’s an unbelievable amount of material to complain about here. As another example, this is an actual line from the article:

“Obama radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I’m beginning to miss”

You get the idea.

But beyond my basic need to vent, the Brooks article is also important as the most explicit manifestation of the theme I mentioned at the outset–that somehow President Obama is different, and better, than the usual crop of corrupt and duplicitous politicians.  He is not. The least dirty shirt in the laundry is still a dirty shirt.

The media may not have paid much attention to President Obama’s scandals. But for the countless victims of his policies around the world, they will be impossible to forget.

How to Impoverish Americans: The Case of New York and Airbnb

It’s easy. Just prevent voluntary transactions and restrict property rights.

The Story

Last week, the New York state legislature ratcheted up its war on Airbnb, the popular room-sharing service. Previously, New York had already made it illegal for users to rent out their units for less than 30 days unless they were present. This meant that, legally, people could only rent out rooms in their residence, not rent out the entire place.

Now, they’ve gone one step further. That arrangement is still illegal, and now it’s illegal to advertise it as well.

Over at Sovereign Man, Simon Black has a few words to offer on this new development. His write-up includes an appropriate level of outrage and contempt, even if the title is possibly a bit over the top. I think you’ll like it:

Pre-crime returns to America with new Airbnb law

Why This Matters

The question at hand in this story is no less than whether property rights exist in New York or not. The government of New York is clearly determined to answer that question in the negative.

If property rights exist, then a property owner should have the right to let anyone use their property on whatever terms are mutually agreeable.

Perhaps an old friend wants to come by and crash on your couch. That should be legal.

Perhaps you’re ready to have your significant other move in (but you aren’t positive they like you enough to pay rent). So you invite them to live with you for free. Great! That should be legal.

Or perhaps you have enough faith in humanity that you’d trust a complete stranger to stay in your house without you around–for a small fee of course. As long as you’re fine with it, that should be legal too.

But like most governments, it turns out that New York knows what’s in your best interests better than you do. So that last scenario is illegal.

In the process, the government impoverishes property owners by denying them an opportunity to earn additional income. It also deters would-be travelers because, all things equal, the new regulation will restrict the supply of lodging options in the city and thereby drive up prices. This in turn is likely to have an adverse effect on anyone who works in New York City’s tourism industry.

But of course, one group who does stand to benefit somewhat from this arrangement. And that’s the hotel companies who are unable or unwilling to compete with the often lower price point offered by Airbnb. As the old saying goes, “If you can’t beat them, lobby the legislature to make their business model illegal.”

Or something like that.