All posts by Thomas L. Knapp

Op-Eds

Presidential Politics: They’re All Conservatives

Leave a comment
"The Great Presidential Puzzle": &qu...
“The Great Presidential Puzzle”: “Illustration shows Senator Roscoe Conkling, leader of the Stalwarts group of the Republican Party, playing a puzzle game. All blocks in the puzzle are the heads of the potential Republican presidential candidates, among them Grant, Sherman, Tilden, and Blaine. Parodies the famous 14-15 puzzle. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As reliably as seconds ticking by on an expensive wristwatch, Republican presidential candidates loudly and vehemently identify themselves as “conservatives.” We’re used to hearing politicians lie, but these politicians are telling the truth for once. They ARE all conservatives.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, lie constantly about their political orientations. They label themselves “liberals” or even “progressives.” But they are conservatives, too.

Since FDR’s New Deal, politicians of all stripes have consistently tried to link conservatism with “smaller government.” But that’s not what conservatism is, or ever has been about. Conservatism is about conserving.

What does it mean to conserve something? “To keep in a safe or sound state; to save; to preserve; to protect” (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 edition).

What does political conservatism aim to save, preserve, protect? The existing system. As William F. Buckley, Jr. put it, political conservatism consists of “standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” (or, in the case of conservatism’s “progressive” variant, “yelling slow down”). And that, in a nutshell, is the platform and program of every serious candidate for either major party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Sure, there are differences in emphasis. But they’re not especially significant.

The candidates who call themselves conservatives are hell-bent on preserving the post-WWII garrison state by way of the single largest welfare (mostly corporate welfare) entitlement program in the federal budget: They want to maintain “defense spending” at a rate ten times that of America’s nearest competitor (China). They describe proposals to even limit the growth of that budget line as “draconian cuts.” When it comes to “social” programs like Social Security, they occasionally talk about minor cuts or privatization … but only by way of “saving” the system, not abolishing it.

The conservative candidates who call themselves “progressives” come at it from the opposite direction: Their priority is saving those “social” programs. When it comes to military spending, they occasionally talk about tiny cuts, or perhaps capping increase rates, but as the Obama administration demonstrates, even those minor modifications are not hills they’re prepared to make their last stands on.

If we think of politics as a 360-degree circle, the differences between modern American “conservatism” and modern American “progressivism” cover maybe five degrees, just to the right of zero. Those boundaries are, to mix metaphors, third rails. Step on them and die — or at least, as Rand Paul has discovered, get a nasty jolt encouraging you to hurry back into safe territory.

In reality, there are only two available political directions: Society can become more libertarian, or it can become more authoritarian (and eventually totalitarian). The conservative candidates of both parties offer only the latter option.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Suicide: The Only Question That Matters

1 Comment
Graph of suicide rates in the United States by...
Graph of suicide rates in the United States by age in 2005. Data from the CDC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A Dakota County, Minnesota jury voted on May 14 to convict Final Exit Network of helping Doreen Dunn take her own life in 2007.

If the prosecution’s claims are true, Dunn, who suffered from chronic pain, sought Final Exit’s assistance in ending her life; two of the group’s members sat with her as she killed herself by inhaling helium;  they then removed the equipment from the scene so that it would look like she died of natural causes (presumably so that they would not be charged with the crime of “assisting a suicide”).

One of those who sat with Dunn was granted immunity to testify against Final Exit Network. The other has since died, leaving the organization as sole defendant, subject to fines of $33,000.

The conviction reaffirms a disturbing implicit property claim: The claim that the state owned Doreen Dunn’s life, and that it owns yours as well. It would have been more honest to charge Final Exit with “stealing government property.”

Do you own yourself, or does the state own you? With respect to suicide, this is the only question that matters.

To continue living, or not to do so, is the most basic, primal decision each of us makes every minute of every day of our lives.

If you own yourself, then by definition the decision to continue living or to end your life — for any reason, at any time, with or without the assistance of others, in any manner that doesn’t violate others’ rights — is yours alone to make.

Anyone claiming a right to take that decision out of your hands is by definition claiming ownership of your life. But that would amount to slavery, an institution formally abolished in 1865 with the 13th Amendment.

Some try to dodge the baldness of their ownership claim by imputing it to God, with themselves as mere enforcers. But in America, it’s not the state’s job to inflict the religious beliefs of some on unconsenting others.

Some argue a “slippery slope”: Legal assisted suicide, they say,  will be faked to conceal murders. But that gets it exactly backward. If suicide is legal it can be chosen openly in advance (perhaps with sworn affidavits), making it harder rather than easier to fake.

It’s time and past time we required legislators, and implored juries, to recognize the ownership of each individual over his or her life — and death.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Marriage: How to De-Politicize the Culture War

2 Comments

RGBStock Holding Hands

In the United States, same-sex marriage is de facto legal — based on a combination of court rulings and legislation — in 36 states, the District of Columbia and several American Indian jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court is widely expected to come down on the side of ending marriage apartheid nation-wide this summer. Even if it doesn’t do so in one fell swoop, the Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause” will make itself felt over time, if for no other reason that married couples move, then divorce.

Ireland’s late-May referendum may be a global bellwether. 62% of voters in that largely Catholic country brushed aside the objections of church leaders to legalize same-sex marriage.

Some social conservatives, particularly in the United States, seem to have finally got it through their heads that they’ve lost this battle; they want to move on. A few of them even have an inkling of the best way to go about doing so.

On May 19, Alabama’s Senate passed a bill that, if also approved by the House and the governor, would move marriage from the category of state-licensed activity to a matter of contract between parties. No ceremony necessary — if you want one, that will be between you and your church or other social group.

It’s about time! Libertarians have been suggesting this for decades.

With the state out of the business of defining and licensing marriage, that institution can evolve organically as people decide for themselves how to organize their lives.

People who want to marry can just consult a lawyer. Or, and I predict this will happen very quickly, legal services firms will make boilerplate marriage contracts available for inexpensive download, with selections of additional “drop-in” clauses to accommodate most reasonably common scenarios (property settlements in case of divorce, for example, as are handled with “pre-nups” now by some couples).

The Alabama bill, according to news accounts, specifies only two parties, but not their sexes. On the ground, those who want marriages of more than two parties will presumably be able to have workable contracts drawn up to accommodate their desires, neatly sidestepping (for e.g. polygamy) the decade-long political war we just went through over same-sex marriage. Presented with a facially just and valid contract, a court will likely honor and enforce that contract.

Will this approach get the state out of marriage matters entirely? No. Marriage contracts might specify arbitration instead of state court litigation in case of divorce, but when it comes to matters of child custody and child support, the state will probably assert a compelling interest to intervene as it sees fit.

But it’s a start. People are better than politicians at making important life decisions for themselves.

[hat tip for the Alabama story — George Phillies of Liberty For America]

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY