Theleftprofessesignoranceaboutconservative,libertarianconcerns

The left professes ignorance about conservative, libertarian concerns over police militarization

posted at 3:21 pm on August 14, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The left is out in force making sure that everyone knows they don’t really listen to conservative or libertarian arguments, but are happy enough to summarize them inaccurately.

“I don’t see anybody from the libertarian or Republican movement who talk about small government and overstepping American citizens’ rights coming either on camera or social media to talk about this situation,” CNN contributor L.Z. Granderson said on Thursday.

“You want to appeal to minority voters, this is how you do it. You don’t just come to the aid of white people being under siege by the government,” he artlessly added.

Granderson is not alone.

The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman asserted on Wednesday that “there has been a near-total silence from prominent libertarians” on the situation unfolding in Ferguson. That supposed “silence” could have been construed by Waldman as prudence, seeing as the details of what happened are murky and the response to the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has been violent and emotionally charged.

These voices on the left do not seem to have much regard for the axiom that it is best to hold one’s tongue unless certain that which is said would improve the silence. Nevertheless, the assertion that GOP and libertarian voices have been conspicuously silent on this or past episodes of excessive force by an increasingly militarized police is just flat wrong.

Among right-of-center elected officials, several have spoken out:

“Reporters should never be detained — a free press is too important — simply for doing their jobs,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote on his Facebook on Thursday. “Civil liberties must be protected, but violence is not the answer.”

Together, we should all mourn the loss of life in Ferguson, Missouri and work to keep our communities safe and free. Police officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and any time a young man loses his life in a confrontation with law enforcement, it is tragic.

The famously libertarian congressman Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) expressed great dismay over the situation unfolding in Missouri:

Images & reports out of #Ferguson are frightening. Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov't escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics.

— Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) August 14, 2014

Many were confused by Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) apparent silence on the situation in Ferguson. It turned out that he was penning a definitive article for Time in which he insisted that the police must be demilitarized.

“There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement,” Paul wrote.

Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

But while conservative elected representatives must maintain some caution while commenting on the violence in Ferguson, the right-of-center commentariat enjoys a bit more freedom of expression and they have been making use of it.

It is shocking to learn today that so many on the left appear utterly unaware of the vigorous debate conservatives have been engaging in over the increasing militarization and heavy-handedness of the police. The conservative columnist S.E. Cupp has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of voices on the right who have sounded the alarm over police forces exceeding their authority.

“Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway,” The National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke wrote in June.

“If cops continue to take a warlike us-versus-them approach to policing the population, they just might bring the left and right together,” Fox host John Stossel noted that same month. “Government is reckless, whether it is intruding into our lives with byzantine regulations that destroy a fledgling business or with a flash-bang grenade like the one that critically wounded a child in a recent SWAT raid in Janesville, Georgia.”

“So you combine the cops overstepping the Constitution and their bounds …. some of them just starting to go dark inside, and the militarization of our police force and you have a very bad combination,” Glenn Beck observed in February. “How does that end?”

Washington Post commentator Radley Balko’s best-selling book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop, might be the definitive work on the subject of police militarization. Balko would hardly describe himself as left-leaning.

In Cupp’s amalgamation of links to right-of-center commentators expressing concern about the militarization of police, she could only link to Reason magazine’s tag “militarization of police.” Therein, nearly 30 full pages of articles on the subject go all the way back to 2006.

What the left may object to is the fact there is a robust debate on the right over this issue, and that conservatives and libertarians do not share a single monolithic opinion. On the right, there is no hive mind. There are a range of opinions on this matter, as there are on a variety of controversial political and social issues. On the left, however, there is no debate. The police in Ferguson are presumed both guilty and racist, and the only deliberation is over whether the officers accused of using undue force should have their names disclosed so as to satisfy the mob.

That is not healthy. That is not reflective of a sound party. What the left is demanding is Borg-like conformity from its members, and a general condemnation of those who do not display what is subjectively determined to be the appropriate level of enthusiasm while agreeing with them.

The fact that some center-left commentators believe there is total silence on the right when it comes to issues relating to excessive police force and semi-military posture is a shocking admission of ignorance. It is a display of obliviousness to claim that all on the right who are concerned about the erosion of Americans’ constitutional liberties have been inconsistent on the issue of police militarization.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: conservative, ferguson, libertarian, militarized, police, Radley Balko, S.E. Cupp

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on July 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

This weekend, Sen. Rand Paul will headline a “conservatarian” conference in San Francisco. So, just what is a conservatarian? Hard to say…

[David] Boaz—the leader of the premiere libertarian think tank in the country—had never heard of the term “conservatarian,” and threw some cold water on the idea that this type of libertarianism is a novel idea for Californians.

Which brings us back to the original question—is “conservatarianism” a new, tech-minded branch of libertarianism, or is it the same old philosophy with a shiny new buzzword?

***

Potential GOP presidential contender Rand Paul said Wednesday that no one should question Israel’s actions in a time of war.

“I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves,” the Kentucky Republican told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on “The Blaze.” “These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not our job to second guess.”…

“The first thing I do is say absolutely no money goes to Hamas, no foreign aid gets in the hands of Hamas,” Paul responded. He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States.

***

Paul has donned a yarmulke and danced to Hebrew songs. He has prayed at the Western Wall and visited a prominent New Jersey yeshiva (a religious school where a major GOP contributor served as his tour guide). He’s dialed into one of the country’s most popular Jewish radio programs and held off-the-record conference calls with Jewish leaders across more than 30 states. He has introduced pro-Israel legislation (title: the “Stand With Israel Act”), speechified about it in the Senate, and, relentlessly, sought a private audience with the wealthiest and most influential Jewish Republicans in the nation…

The charm offensive has two goals at its core. The first is to try to establish Paul in the foreign policy mainstream of Republicanism, particularly on the signal issue of Israel, which is of key importance to both Jewish voters and evangelical Christians. The second is to win over, or at the least neutralize, the moneyed class of hawkish Israel defenders—free-spending billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer chief among them—who Paul’s advisers know represent among the most significant impediments to his becoming the party’s next standard-bearer…

“I’m not buying it,” said Elliott Abrams, who served as a top national security adviser to President George W. Bush and is now a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. Paul and Abrams had a private sit-down on Capitol Hill last fall. “You can’t be an isolationist and credibly pro-Israel. The idea that you’re isolationist for every other country and every other issue in the world except Israel just is not persuasive.” (Paul, for his part, vigorously rejects the “isolationist” label.)…

As former Sen. Norm Coleman, an RJC board member and influential Jewish political figure who has been courted by Paul, said, “He’s doing a very good job clearing up the perception that he’s not his dad.”

***

Perhaps more interesting than this hawks-versus-libertarians dispute, which is an old argument, is who Paul’s antagonists have been. Both Perry and Cruz are politicians who’ve long been associated with the Tea Party, as Paul has. Perry, in his ill-fated 2012 campaign, warned of “military adventurism,” called for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and advocated cutting off aid to Pakistan. Cruz was lumped in with Paul in the category McCain derided as “wacko birds” after Paul’s 2013 drone filibuster. Yet both Perry and Cruz are anxious to differentiate themselves from Paul by turning him into a peacenik caricature. (As Dave Weigel points out, there is personal animosity behind the Perry-Paul spat.) Paul and his allies, for their part, tend to see a neoconservative conspiracy in the way he’s so often used as a punching bag. In an interview last year, Paul described his antagonists to me as “the perpetual war caucus,” and added, “I think much of their chagrin is they see that we’re winning. They’re on the losing side of history.”

Rand Paul is performing an admirable service for the Republican Party: forcing it to have an uncomfortable family conversation—airing an internal dispute that otherwise might get papered over. A confident and opportunistic politician, Paul is eager to take on his critics; by doing so, he believes he can rid the GOP of the stain of Bush’s policies and expand its appeal among voters alienated by Iraq.

***

[I]t’s fallen to Rand Paul to revive his party’s standing with black Americans. After the splashy performances that sealed his reputation (a filibuster here, a standing ovation at Berkeley there), Paul has settled into something of a grind as the rest of the GOP’s presumptive presidential contenders take turns trying to cement themselves as the party’s antithesis to all things Paul…

Rand Paul seems to understand what all of America’s would-be Anti-Rands do not: The GOP cannot content itself with picking up “spare” minority votes here and there, mostly from Latinos, and celebrating the relative handful of black figures who stubbornly insist on being Republican.

As a Floridian Anti-Rand like Marco Rubio can attest, the Republican Party doesn’t really have a generic race problem. Lots of minority voters are simply for what the Democratic Party offers, not against the GOP because it strikes them as racist. Black Americans, however, have a different, distinct experience with the GOP. One minute, they were the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. The next, they were the party opposed to the Civil Rights Act. No amount of theorizing or intellectualization can get around the impact of that change…

If the GOP’s contending candidates won’t at least accommodate his politics of race, the Anti-Rand who rises to the top faces the discouraging prospect of appearing to oppose them. In that case, defeating Paul will come at the cost of losing to the ghost of Goldwater.

***

In a brief speech before a panel moderated by Nicole Austin-Hillery of the liberal Brennan Center for Justice, the Kentucky senator and libertarian icon called the criminal justice system the “largest impediment to voting and employment in this country.” The U.S legal system, he said, has trapped many nonviolent felons in a place where they “can’t vote and can’t work.”…

Traditionally, the politics of enfranchising felons has fallen along partisan lines. Democrats want to expand the electorate, and Republicans want to restrict it. But Paul’s advocacy for allowing felons to vote seems to be based mostly on conscience. After all, there can’t be much political gain in appealing to a class of citizens who aren’t yet able to vote…

Instead, the voting rights advocacy puts Paul in a unique position moving forward. Increasingly, the Kentucky Republican seems to be pushing a libertarian brand of compassionate conservatism—without the big-government trappings of the Bush era. His emphasis on issues such as felon voting and the plight of Christians in the Middle East is designed to resonate with evangelicals without alienating moderates. It’s not entirely clear what the ideology of a Rand Paul Republican would look like in 2016, but as Tuesday’s event shows, it certainly won’t look quite like the platform of any other politician.

***

Early polls of the 2016 contest have shown Paul leading about half the time in New Hampshire and generally running toward the front of the pack in Iowa as well. Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) both led these two states early on but have since seen their support fall off (thanks toe Christie’s bridge scandal and Rubio’s dabbling with comprehensive immigration reform), and nobody else is as consistently toward the top in both states.

It’s very rare that a presidential candidate excels in both of the two early states, given Iowa is dominated by evangelical Christians and New Hampshire has a more moderate bent. And it’s generally assumed that any candidate who wins both of would likely end the race right then and there — as was (essentially) the case on the Democratic side in 2004 with John Kerry.

Paul’s unusual profile appears to have appeal to these disparate constituencies. He has spent considerable time appealing to the kind of Christians you’d see in Iowa, but his libertarian streak fits nicely with New Hampshire as well. He talks to both tea party crowds and to non-traditional Republican groups, including historically black colleges…

Paul isn’t the only one who could seems capable of pulling off an unprecedented two-state sweep, but for now, he seems to have the best chance.

***

***

Via Reason TV.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: 2016, compassionate conservatism, foreign policy, GOP, libertarian, Rand Paul, rubio

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Libertarian poll: Millennials are … pretty liberal, actually

Libertarianpoll:Millennialsare…prettyliberal,actually

Should the GOP push to lower the drinking age to 18?

ShouldtheGOPpushtolowerthedrinking

AreyoureadyforBush/Paul2016? posted

Are you ready for Bush/Paul 2016?

posted at 11:41 am on April 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

A corollary to yesterday’s post spitballing about what Paul might do if Jeb (or someone else) squashes him in the early primaries. Whatever you think of Rand’s chances at the nomination, says Ramesh Ponnuru, he’s a strong contender for VP. Do the math:

Let’s say the Kentucky legislator makes a strong run — winning some states and coming close in others — but doesn’t win the nomination, a scenario that seems more likely than not. He has something going for him in the veepstakes that other Republican also-rans would not: a constituency that might well defect in large numbers from the party in November.

Assuming Paul loses, the Libertarian Party will have an easier task than usual: It will be able to concentrate its organizing among the people who voted for Paul in the primaries. That could easily amount to enough voters to deny Republicans a victory in the general election. (In other words, the libertarian candidate in this situation would be Ralph Nader in reverse.)

The winning Republican nominee would need Paul to campaign actively for him to prevent this scenario. But why wouldn’t Paul just go home to Kentucky to campaign for his own re-election? His Senate seat will be up in 2016.

Actually, unless Kentucky law changes or Paul wins a court battle declaring it unconstitutional, he’d be barred by statute from running for the Senate once he commits to running for president. That gives him even less incentive to make nice with the GOP nominee and campaign hard on his behalf, which makes the VP scenario even more likely. The eventual nominee, assuming it isn’t Rand himself, has to offer him the veep slot to keep libertarians and pro-Rand tea partiers in the fold. Doesn’t he?

Probably, yeah — although it may be that we end up with a nominee who’s so hostile to Paul and his philosophy that he’d refuse to add him to the ticket on principle, whatever that might mean for November. Christie might fit that bill, Ted Cruz obviously wouldn’t. Bush is an interesting case: He’d rather stay far away from Paulism, I’d guess, but Paul’s “different kind of Republican” brand would be attractive to a guy who’ll be hammered as a dynasty case and retread. If you want to signal to voters that you’re breaking from the GOP’s recent (Bush-heavy) past, Rand Paul’s the man you want to run with. It’d certainly help Bush get a grudging second look from grassroots righties. I think Rand would accept the offer too, despite the howls from hardcore ideologues in his base that he’d sold out and was being exploited by the enemy. Between endorsing Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky Senate primary and taking a more hawkish stand on Russia lately, he’s showed that he’s willing to compromise with the establishment in the name of improving his odds nationally. Serving as VP would give him the ultimate establishment cred and put him in line for the nomination down the road. He’s young by presidential standards. He can wait.

Here’s the X factor: Will establishment hawks and the GOP’s donor class tolerate having Paul on the ticket? If he wins an early primary or two, they’re going to kitchen-sink him with harsh attacks — he hates Israel, he fraternizes with racists, he’d destroy respect for American power in the world even more thoroughly than Obama has, and certainly he wouldn’t stand a chance against Hillary in the general. It’s … not easy to switch in a matter of months from that position to “hey, let’s put him one heartbeat away.” In particular, it’d be odd to go from claiming that Paul is electoral poison as nominee to claiming that it’d be electoral poison not to nominate him for VP for the reason Ponnuru gives (although that argument can, and probably will, be made). Just for example, could someone like McCain endorse a Bush/Paul or Rubio/Paul ticket? Could Christie? Could Sheldon Adelson, on whom the GOP is counting to donate tens of millions of dollars in the general election? Most Republicans would be good soldiers but you only need a small yet influential group of Paul critics to threaten to walk in order to get the nominee to think twice about Rand.

Exit question: Is there some middle-ground solution here, like a cabinet appointment for Paul, that would avoid the VP dilemma? Er, which cabinet position would he be an obvious candidate for?

Tags: 2016, Jeb Bush, libertarian, nomination, ponnuru, Rand Paul, republican, Vice President, vp

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Video:RonPauldefendsCrimea’sreferendumonannexation

Video: Ron Paul defends Crimea’s referendum on annexation by Russia

posted at 4:41 pm on March 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Noah Rothman, it comes in the second half of the clip below on NSA spying. This about sums things up:

Ron Paul, noninterventionist, defends Russia's invasion of Crimea http://t.co/0S8fEzCsU9

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) March 13, 2014

The setting here, interestingly, is Fox Business’s new libertarian-themed show “The Independents.” It’s “Reason” editor Matt Welch who challenges Paul on the uselessness of trying to hold a free and fair election in a province that’s being threatened by 80,000 Russian troops across the border. Paul’s among people who respect the non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, in other words, and even they seemingly can’t believe that he’s trying to frame this as a matter of “self-determination.” Even if the election were free and fair, remember that Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority in no small part because Stalin purged it of its Tatars decades ago. “Self-determination” has always been … problematic in Crimea. And not just Crimea, needless to say.

But never mind all that. Nowadays, Ron Paul’s foreign-policy pronouncements matter politically mostly to the extent they agree or disagree with Rand’s. The disagreement in this case is sharp. Which raises the question: Even if you think Rand is privately more sympathetic to his father’s views on international relations than he’s letting on, how would he govern if he ended up being elected? Either he’s telling the truth in his Time op-ed about wanting to be tough on Russia or he’s lying but too afraid of how voters would react if he revealed his true views. And if he’s too afraid now, presumably he’d also be too afraid as president — during his first term, at least. Paint me a picture of how President Rand metamorphoses into President Ron without facing a nasty backlash from Democrats and Republican hawks. We’d all prefer a candidate who votes the right way out of principle to one who votes the right way because he fears the wrath of the electorate if he doesn’t, but in the end they’re both voting the right way. Romney clearly fell into the second column, not the first, and we went and nominated him, didn’t we? That’s the devil’s-advocate view of why Rand’s private foreign policy views don’t matter, even if you’re suspicious about them.

Anyway. I’m sorry to report that four Russian websites known for criticism of Putin’s government are now enjoying less self-determination than they used to. In lieu of an exit question, read this Cathy Young piece responding to isolationists on the far left and far right who blame America for spoiling relations with post-Soviet Russia. Moscow had plenty of opportunities, replete with financial incentives, to play nice with the west. Putin has his own agenda.

Tags: annexation, crimea, libertarian, paleocon, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Russia, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair