Deep thought

If this were a just world, every self-righteous libertarian who started talking about how they're "tired of the traditional left-right divide" would be immediately punched in the face.* That goes for Al Giordano too.

*Preferably by a union worker.

Poor Mike Gravel :(

The week started out well for my man Gravel, with an almost-but-not-quite endorsement from an Internet celebrity. And he even learned the Soulja Boy dance, so now he can impress all the girls at his next college party!

But then he went on Fox News only to have Neil Cavuto tell him bluntly to his face that he's not going to be President:

But there's still reason to rejoice! Cavuto said Gravel's a lock for the Libertarian Party endorsement!

Not so fast. Enter former Congressman Bob Barr, who apparently has the GOP scared that his positions make him the Second Coming of Ron Paul (I can't believe I just wrote that phrase) and that Barr will win the 8% of Republicans who have been voting for Paul over McCain even after McCain has secured the nomination (and 16% in PA).

The Libertarian Party picks their nominee by May 26th, and right now Gravel's in good position: 11th out of 11 on the Party's website, behind Barr, "Future/Unannounced Candidate," and "None of the Above."

Ron Paul Still Scares Me

Ron Paul just used Guy Fawkes day to raise over $4 million dollars in one day! Holy Moley!

This man still scares the bejeezus (sp?) out of me. Paul supporters are akin to a cult.

Don't believe me? Check out this Ron Paul Ad

The More Things Change...

Between the bazillions of debates about the state of liberalism and conservatism (which, if the blogosphere is to be believed, undergo Revolution or at least Crises of Confidence about every thirty-five seconds) it's comforting to read somebody like Ross Douthat pointing out that our political alignments are still basically the same as they were in 1965--

I think [conservative writers Poulous and Dreher] are misreading the contemporary American left, though, if they think there's any kind of significant fusionism waiting to happen between disillusioned lefties and the anti-Bush Right. ...Most of the smart young lefties I know aren't interested in some grand convergence with disillusioned populist-conservatives; they're interested in harnessing the kind of "office-park populism" that gave us Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester in order to dramatically expand social democracy in the United States. For some, this means a return the old-time religion (a higher minimum wage, strong unions, government jobs programs, etc.); for others, it means a smarter, more growth-friendly form of social democracy (think Denmark, rather than France); for most, it means some combination thereof. But the overall model is still bigger government plus cultural permissiveness, not some kind of "small is beautiful" left-conservatism out to defend the permanent things against the ravages of modernity.

The left's vision of an expanded welfare state as both the answer to populist anxieties and the guardian of social liberalism is a perfectly coherent worldview, and it's one that I think has a good chance of accomplishing many of its objectives over the next few decades. (When I say that things are going well for liberals right now, that's what I mean - not just the Dems might trounce the GOP in '08, but that the overall political climate is as favorable to social democracy as it's been in thirty years.) But it's not the kind of worldview that's likely to want, or need, an alliance with the partisans of crunchy conservatism and putting Kansas First.

Douthat is right. Liberalism neither wants nor needs an influx of weepy self-hating post-Bush Republicans who think we can offer them political salvation. George Bush was a bad president but he was not a hydrogen-bomb on the political scene; our principles remain the principles we have held basically since FDR, and conservative thought remains totally anathema to them. Considering the strength of the political coalition liberalism has built today, it would only be to our detriment if we bothered to open the tent to these destructive right-wing freaks, however nonconformist they may be. (And yes, this also applies to "liberaltarianism", one of the most unholy combinations of stupid and unnecessary to ever appear in political thought.)

As far as I'm concerned as many conservatives as possible should go down with George Bush's ship. These people, it has been consistently demonstrated since Warren Harding, destroy everything they touch; they are menaces to society, plain and simple. And for us, as liberals and Democrats we are not obligated to give their ideas any quarter, no matter how many puppy-dog eyes the Reason kids make at us; the social-democratic plan we operated on under FDR and LBJ seems to be working again just fine. We progressives, and whatever government we end up with in 2008 -- and if you're a betting man you're betting it's Democratic -- would be stupid to listen to Rod Dreher or anyone else who suggests we should build some funky postmodern left-right coalition. Remember the old rule: don't fix what ain't broke.

Elitism is Everywhere These Days

Three examples.

1. Libertarians: "See, the public at large is stupid, because it rejects the ideas of economists and economists are always right. Democracy sucks."

2. Conservatives: "You know who deserves more credit for their dedication and hard work? People who inherit boatloads of money."

3. TIME Magazine: "Look! A rich guy and a celebrity! I wish they ran our government." (swoon)

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of this. Money is not the arbiter of intelligence, capability, or merit, nor does it necessarily flow towards people who display those qualities -- yet we see the above kinds of arguments in our public discourse all the time. I'm not sure whether they come out of a misguided faith in market capitalism or a fetish for money (if there's a difference); but it's damn time we stopped listening to people who consistently glorify the most powerful at the expense of everyone else.

--
(big h/t to Sadly, No!, which is always good at pouncing on this stuff)

Burning Man Festival: 'bleeding edge of Libertarianism'?

I'd wager that when most people think 'libertarian' their mind trends towards something like this chap, a dull stereotype of fuck-da-guv'mint free-trade types and middle-aged white guys who haven't gotten laid in ages. More specifically, I bet their minds don't trend towards the Burning Man Festival, an "experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance" that probably collects 85% of America's patchouli-oil supply in one place.

But that's exactly the connection made by Reason's Brian Doherty in an interview over at Radar. Apparently Doherty, off-and-on belle of the right and one of my favorite bloggers (really!) sees the heart of Libertarianism in Burning Man's "totally voluntary anarchistic government" and evolves an argument about how libertarianism oughtn't be seen as "some weird subset of the Right Wing. That's not accurate."

While I am certainly extremely suspicious of libertarianism, I've got to say it's a compelling narrative, and certainly one with infinitely more appeal than regressive statist-conservatism like we've got now. It's worth reading Doherty's interview (and Hit and Run in general), if only to ponder the sort of intellectual heritage that connects Adam Smith to smelly hippies.

Oh God, my hands are huuuuuuggeeee! WHERE IS MY HACKY-SACK??!