Monthly Archives: June 2018

Op-Eds

Trump the Politician: Anti-Abortion vs. Anti-Immigration

Leave a comment
CC0 Public Domain dedication, via Max Pixel

In early June,  Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“the gay wedding cake case”) soaked up most of the Supreme Court decision media limelight, even though (or perhaps because) the court’s ruling doesn’t really dispose of the major issues in the case. Another case, also not decided on its merits, got much less attention. But that case reveals conflicting priorities in, and signals from, the Trump administration.

In Hargan v. Garza,  a pregnant teen immigrant (“Jane Doe”) in federal detention was forbidden by Trump administration policy  to procure an abortion (at her own expense or with voluntary assistance from others, not on the taxpayer’s dime). SCOTUS dismissed the matter as “moot” because Doe’s supporters took her to a clinic for the procedure in the middle of the night, after a supportive lower court ruling and before the federal government could appeal that ruling.

Donald Trump has spent considerable time railing against, and his administration has tirelessly worked to find,  detain, and deport, immigrants who don’t get permission slips from politicians before coming here to enrich America’s culture and boost its economy. In particular, we’ve heard plenty of invective from Trump about “chain migration,” “anchor babies,” and “birthright citizenship.”

When it comes to abortion, on the other hand, Trump has been much less consistent. He went from sponsoring National Abortion Rights Action League (1989) to declaring himself “very pro-choice” (1999), to suddenly becoming ardently “pro-life” during his failed first presidential campaign (for the Reform Party’s 2000 nomination; he dropped out when he realized he was going to lose to Pat Buchanan, from whom he’s shamelessly cribbed ever since). But as late as 2016, he opined to CBS that “at this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

Trump’s position on immigration is seemingly long-held and consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent. His position on abortion, though is transparently political and changes as politics requires.

Hargan v. Garza  tells us which side Trump really thinks his bread is buttered on: The politics as usual, grease the squeaky pro-life wheel side. His administration holds, as a matter of policy so important that it deserves escalation to the Supreme Court if necessary, that pregnant immigrants absolutely, positively, must be forced to deliver shiny new “birthright citizens,” even if they’re willing to pay for their own abortions.

I wonder what his “build the wall, deport them all” base thinks about that?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Progressives” Against (Economic) Progress

1 Comment

RGBStock traffic tunnel

One week it’s ride-sharing. The next week it’s home-sharing. The week after that, cryptocurrency.  There’s no end of economic change to perpetually wring one’s hands over or, worse,  demand government action against.

Most opponents of the sharing economy, the gig economy, the cryptocurrency economy, etc., posture as “progressives” even as they openly side with corporate dinosaurs and parasitic bureaucrats and  against  workers and the entrepreneurs who empower those workers.

Let’s call these self-styled “progressives” what they really are: Reactionaries.

They’re desperate to preserve a post-World War Two American economic order which they themselves admit hasn’t worked for regular Americans for decades, if it ever really did.

How often do we hear from these “progressives” about “wage stagnation” and “lack of family leave” and what “Americans who work hard and play by the rules” should get but aren’t getting?

But when a company like Uber comes along and makes it possible for people to make more per hour than those who drive for state-privileged “medallion” taxi monopolies, while setting their own hours and taking off any time they need to, our “progressive” reactionaries side with the monopolists and support legislation and litigation to force drivers back onto the wage labor plantation.

Oh, about that extra room in your house — don’t even think about renting it out by the night for extra income via Airbnb. The well-heeled hotel lobby hates that idea and their allies, the “progressive” reactionaries, want you cleaning rooms at Super 8 and waiting patiently for another decade or three for them to deliver on their “living wage” promises, not taking financial matters into your own hands. If that means you can’t afford to keep your house, too bad — they’ll slam you for contributing to “gentrification” when you sell it to someone who CAN afford it.

When it comes to reproductive rights, these supposed “progressives” are proudly “pro-choice.” But watch that support for “choice” evaporate the instant you choose money (cryptocurrency) that can’t be easily taxed to finance their schemes. They’re a lot less interested in a bigger pie for you than they are in preserving their own ability to take a slice of that pie at will.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. defined a conservative as “someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Sound familiar, “progressives?”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Political Parties Should Say What They Mean. The Libertarian Party Does.

1 Comment

The Stature of Liberty. Photo from MaxPixel's free collection.

Orlando, Florida, 2016, at the Libertarian Party’s national convention: “Jim Fulner (MI) moved that we adopt the following resolution: ‘Be it resolved, taxation is theft.’ Following debate, the resolution was adopted by a voice vote.”

Thus making a slogan much-loved by radical libertarians, and a claim implicit in the party’s Statement of Principles and platform, official party dogma.

Are Mr. Fulner and the convention delegates (including me) fire-breathing radicals? Well, he certainly is, and I certainly am, and a number of those delegates certainly were.

But here’s former Massachusetts governor William Weld,  whose reputation as a squishy moderate nearly cost him the party’s 2016 vice-presidential nomination (conferred on him by those same delegates), in a speech a decade earlier:  “I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum.”

Slightly weaker tea (“stealing car stereos is wrong, what say we cut it back on that a little, say to two or three a month?”) but the sentiment’s at least in the same ballpark.

So, let me say this again: It is the official position of the Libertarian Party that taxation is theft. It is also the official position of the Libertarian Party that we oppose theft (per our Statement of Principles, “[we] support the prohibition of robbery”).

Why do I bring this up? Because in recent discussions with some of my fellow partisan Libertarians, I get the impression that  they either honestly don’t understand that it IS the party’s official position, or else do understand that but think that it’s a bad idea to say so in public.

I disagree. A political party should always be completely honest and crystal clear about its positions when addressing the public.

Yes, we want the public to agree with us and to elect our candidates to office.

No, we shouldn’t try to trick the public into thinking it agrees with us if it doesn’t.

Nor should we let ourselves be pressured by internal factions to conceal or minimize positions that those factions find embarrassing or inconvenient. If those internal factions don’t like the party’s positions, they’re free to try to persuade the party to change those positions.

So, I’ll say it one more time:

Agree with us or not,  it is the official position of the Libertarian Party that taxation is theft. It is also the official position of the Libertarian Party that we are against theft. Vote accordingly.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY