Op-Eds

Election 2016: Finally a Real Third Way?

4 Comments
Libertarian Party Logo
Libertarian Party Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I write this column, the polls haven’t yet opened for “Super Tuesday.” By the time you read it, polling predicts that Donald Trump will have carried at least 12 of the 13 Republican primary and caucus states, the possible exception being Texas (which may go for Ted Cruz), and that Hillary Clinton will have won 10 of 12 Democratic contests (Bernie Sanders is expected to carry Vermont and Colorado).

If the polls are right, Trump and Clinton are, at this point, essentially unstoppable in pursuit of their parties’ presidential nominations.

Over the years I’ve become desensitized to the constant talk about how this or that election is “the most consequential of our lifetimes.” It’s usually just not true, because the “major party” candidates are usually as alike as peas in a pod.

But it may be true this year, precisely because the two candidates are as alike as Juan and Evita Peron.

Over the years I’ve also become desensitized to the constant talk about this being the year a “third party” finally breaks out, because as much as I’d like to believe that (I’m a long-time Libertarian Party activist), it’s also usually just not true.

But it may be true this year, because we seem to have hit bottom in our long slide into banana republicanism — the culmination of, among other things, George W. Bush’s “unitary executive” claims and Barack Obama’s “pen and phone” posturing.

The first step, as Alcoholics Anonymous points out, is admitting you have a problem. There’s certainly no denying that at this point. We seem to be at the point where America has two choices: Up, or out. We can pull ourselves up from our authoritarian funk, or we can finally tip ourselves over into the dustbin of history.

I’m not placing any bets on which way things will go in the here and now, although my money is on the dustbin option for the long term (I always bet with the odds).

It seems to me, however, that if there is ever going to be a libertarian moment in American politics, it has to come soon, and that this year is its best chance.

Since 1972, the Libertarian Party has consistently offered American voters their best shot at national resurgence and a new birth of freedom. We’ve been right on economics. We’ve been right on foreign policy. We’ve been right on immigration. We’ve been right on all the burning social issues.

But being right has never been enough. While hundreds of Libertarians have served and continue to serve in public office, we’ve never worked our way higher up the elective political ladder than state legislative seats. It’s always been easier for voters to just go with the flow, kick the can down the road, etc.

So, how’s that working out for you? The polls say not so well. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? If that’s not the bottom of the barrel, the barrel has no bottom.

Time to vote Libertarian. Or to quit pretending you care about your country.

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

Government Has a Hard Heart for the Homeless

13 Comments
Homeless people living in cardboard boxes in L...
Homeless people living in cardboard boxes in Los Angeles, California. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Elvis Summers helps the homeless. As Gale Holland of the Los Angeles Times reports, Summers has so far (with the help of $100,000 in private donations) built and placed 37 “tiny houses” in the LA metro area so that people with nowhere to live can move off the sidewalks, out of their tents or cardboard boxes, and into parking-spot-sized buildings with solar powered lighting and doors that lock.

Instead of presenting Summers with an award for improving the city and making the lives of its residents better, the city of Los Angeles has begun seizing — no, let’s not mince words, STEALING — the homes, rudely evicting the individuals and couples living in them. Why? Well, says a mayoral spokesperson, they “can be hazardous.”

It’s been 30 years since I last walked the streets of Los Angeles at night and saw people crawling into boxes to sleep on the sidewalks, but my guess is that a lockable house is now, as it would have been then, less “hazardous” than those streets.

The city has big plans for its homeless population, of course. They’re going to be moved into nice full-size apartments! When? Oh … well … someday.

Yes, the tiny houses sit on “public property.” So do the tents. So do the tarps. So do the bedrolls. Where else would they sit? It’s not like the homeless have homes to take them home to.

It’s not just Los Angeles. Across the country, local governments seem hell-bent on preventing anyone from actually helping the homeless.

In 2014, Arnold Abbot of Fort Lauderdale, Florida was ticketed by police — twice! — for the “crime” of distributing free food to those who had none. Yes, the kindness of a 90-year-old World War II veteran made him a criminal.  As of late 2014, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless, 39 US cities enforced laws against unauthorized feeding of the hungry.

Twice in ten years, my wife and I opened our home to friends who were temporarily without a roof overhead. Twice in ten years we were ticketed and fined by our city government for hosting guests not listed on our residency permit.

As a libertarian, I’m skeptical of claims that government can or will help the homeless (or anyone else). But is it really too much to ask for the politicians — if not out of humanity, then from a sense of moral shame — to get out of the way and let people help each other?

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

#FreeStacy: Twitter meets the Sarkeesian Method and the Streisand Effect

Leave a comment
American blogger/writer/columnist/journalist R...
American blogger/writer/columnist/journalist Robert Stacy McCain (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I suppose I should be enjoying a bit of a schadenfreude moment: About two years ago, I was banned from commenting on Robert Stacy McCain’s blog, The Other McCain, for offending one of his gatekeepers. Now Stacy’s been banned from Twitter, apparently for offending one of its gatekeepers, professional offendee Anita Sarkeesian. But no feelings of poetic justice here. Because I’m above such petty sentiments, see?

McCain is not small beans in the twittersphere: Prior to his account suspension he had amassed more than 90,000 followers, many of whom hung on his every word. Agree with his opinions or not (I usually don’t — his career has been an exercise in continual rotation between race-baiting, gay-bashing and tormenting feminists like Anita Sarkeesian), he’s an engaging and entertaining guy.

Twitter’s business model often seems sketchy to outside observers, but there’s no doubt that it relies on one thing above all: Keeping big chunks of its 650 million users active and engaged with other users.

When the accounts of popular, prolific users with lots of followers suddenly and inexplicably disappear, eyebrows go up. And McCain is not alone. Since the Twitter’s introduction of a “Trust and Safety Council” with Sarkeesian as a member, other right-wing tweeters have have had their accounts suspended (Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos), their “verified identity” credentials pulled (actor and anti-Sarkeesian #Gamergate thought leader Adam Baldwin), and so on. Twitter’s algorithms have also seemingly been rigged to mute the spread of the news, including suppressing listing of #FreeStacy in Twitter’s “hashtag” popularity rankings.

OK, I’m a libertarian. I understand and agree with the private property argument here. Twitter provides the service. Twitter owns the servers. Twitter gets to set the rules, and anyone who doesn’t like them can go find (or build) a microblogging service with rules they DO like.

No contest. Twitter gets to be stupid if Twitter wants to be stupid. But that doesn’t mean we can’t notice that Twitter is being stupid and act accordingly. This kind of behavior could, and should, make Twitter the new MySpace, an Internet ghost town mostly remembered through mockery, in short order.

The Sarkeesian Method — Sarkeesian declares offense, Sarkeesian demands the offenders be suppressed, Sarkeesian collects a paycheck for publicly denouncing those who offended her  — tends to lead to the Streisand Effect. That is, Sarkeesian and her enablers get bad publicity instead of good publicity.

Like I said, not good business for Twitter.

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