I could tell stories for days of my parents’ selfless generosity. My upbringing was unconventional. Many people who needed a place to live came and went on the 80 acres I grew up on in Southwest Missouri. Some lived in a tiny cottage that came with the property, some lived in mobile homes, and some even created a home in the old hog barn. There was no judgment – if it was within our ability to help neighbor or stranger, we did. 

Although we did not celebrate some of the traditional holidays, we did celebrate Mother’s and Father’s Day. But there was always a hint of rebellion at the idea of honoring parents just because the government said we should. (Those of you who know me will begin to see where I get my libertarian bent.)  As I grew older, I decided to honor my father and mother on the day they became my parents – my birth date. It made more sense to give back to them on the day they gave life to me. For a long time, I tended to resist some of the holidays because they have become so commercialized, laden with material expectation, obligation, and guilt.

I was wrong.

As a country, we are bonded with our fellow citizens by shared national ideals and values. Holidays of remembrance, honor and celebration are vital to our unity – especially given our uniquely American foundation of fierce individual rights and liberty. In today’s culture where there are those determined to usurp and devalue the role of women as mothers, honoring motherhood and elevating the traits a mother should possess while celebrating their differences is more important than ever.

 A couple of weeks ago, I texted my daughters to remind them that I did not expect and did not need anything for Mother’s Day. They show their love for me in a thousand ways any given day of the year. They lol’d and said okay. No expectations. No obligation. No guilt. 

When I woke up on this second Sunday in May, my older daughter was already gone to work and I walked into the kitchen to find flowers, homemade cookies, and gift bags for both me and my mother. I was not surprised. This is how she expresses her love. When the younger returned home that afternoon from a weekend with her dad, she helped me prep Mother’s Day dinner for my parents with some of my mother’s favorite dishes. And then she went the extra mile and did additional tasks without being asked. This was her gift, just as meaningful as flowers and sweets.

A friend texted that morning, wishing me a Happy Mother’s Day, and I asked, “What was your favorite thing about your mother?” He immediately replied, “Her patience, her ability to take a joke when we all made fun of her, the sense of overwhelming unconditional love.”

Something about that seemingly simple, yet profound description struck a deep emotional chord. Isn’t that what all mothers should strive for? Aren’t those among the qualities we all need from our mothers? If my daughters can say only that about me, I could ask for nothing more.

Throughout the day on social media, I read story after story of how mothers shape the lives of their children, and messages from moms encouraging other moms. In the minutiae of the day-to-day, we often don’t consider the long term impact of what we do for our children. We just do what needs to be done in that moment. 

But there are moments in history when mothers doing what needs to be done changes the course of a nation.

There is no greater recent example of this than the movement we saw come out of the covid lockdown of schools. There was an awakening across the country as parents’ eyes were opened to what was happening in their schools and what their children were being taught – and not taught. For many, their trust in the public education system was destroyed. 

In Florida, Moms for Liberty formed in 2021 to push back against covid mandates in schools. They grew to hundreds of groups in 45 states by 2023. In Missouri, there were mothers (and fathers) who suddenly became involved in politics out of the necessity of doing what needed to be done for their children in that moment. They showed up at school board meetings, they ran for those school boards, they formed coalitions in their communities, went to the Capitol, got involved in political campaigns, and filed lawsuits against the education bureaucracy that was actively doing harm to their kids.

Shannon, one of those Missouri moms who stepped up to lead, shared this in a Facebook group:

“…Those years taught me how to stand up for my children and my liberties. I fought for all my children but none more than Max. He was a Freshman in high school at the time. It was him who came to me and begged me to help get school in person. He was struggling emotionally and mentally aside from starting to fail academically.  He was the reason I even got involved at all. I didn’t know how to get the school’s attention, what avenues I needed to take. I just knew my child was pleading to me with tears in his eyes to help. You know that feeling. You remember that feeling with your own children.

Last year, in Max’s machine tooling class, they made metal hearts with “Happy Mothers Day” on them. He told me he wanted to say something different, more meaningful so he inscribed “thanks for saving the world”.  This is probably the most treasured Mother’s Day gift any of my kids have ever gotten me.

No one person can save the world. That’s not what he meant, but I do believe I helped save his little world. Through this group, through our advocacy and our determination and my family’s decision to move, I in some small way helped save his world. I am sure I could say the same thing about you and your children would agree. You helped save their world.”

Early attempts to establish holidays for mothers included a committee to establish a “Mother’s Friendship Day,” organized by Ann Jarvis in 1868. The purpose of Ann’s holiday was “to reunite families that had been divided during the Civil War.” Many women’s peace groups had organized similarly in the 19th century with the common theme of mothers coming together whose sons had fought or died on opposite sides of the war. 

Mother’s Day is rooted in peace, forgiveness, unity, and finding common ground.

Of course, there are bad mothers. There are mediocre mothers. There are mothers lauded as the epitome of maternal virtue. None of us are perfect mothers. Our shortcomings are ingrained into our children along with our strengths. When a child is rude or misbehaves, how many times have you heard, “Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?” (Or does anyone still actually say that???)

In our highly polarized and tribalistic political culture, I often wonder where we went wrong. I think of all the old sayings our mothers and grandmothers used to repeat: “You catch more flies with honey.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Life’s not fair.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And so many more, including one that was a constant in my childhood, “What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.”

If you’ve paid much attention to politics in Missouri (or wherever you are, no doubt) at all lately, you’d think a whole lot of adults either missed out on some of these lessons or have forgotten them entirely. And if you’re paying attention, you will also notice that conservatives and libertarians are losing the war for the principles and values that have made these United States of America a “shining city on a hill.” We have a “supermajority” of Republicans in our state, yet we are increasingly divided as purism breeds contempt and disharmony.

We lack legacy thinking. The gains for liberty we saw in the unified grassroots pushback against covid tyranny have already begun to wane as we are consumed by infighting. We have short memories, forgetting so quickly the lessons we learned. Our “solutions” tend to be stopgap measures that get social media clicks, but sweep the problems under the rug of the next generation. Our mothers should be disappointed in us. I can almost hear them saying, “Just wait ‘til your Founding Fathers get home!”

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

 If we’re not persuading, we’re losing. Our words matter. Our rhetoric matters. Even when we fall short of them – especially when we fall short of them. You might have heard the admonition to “let your speech always be with grace…” Perhaps we should spend more time listening to understand so that our words will likewise be heard and considered. After all, “God gave you two ears and one mouth so you can listen more than you speak.” 

When I think of my mother, I think of how she is always singing or humming, her penchant for practical jokes, her unerring belief that I can do anything I put my mind to, her unending generosity, and her unconditional love even when I am sure I have disappointed her. To this day, I want her to be proud of me. And I want to take the lessons that I learned late and teach them to my children early. I want to leave a legacy they can build on. I want to save their world.

Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Looking ahead to the second Sunday of 2025, I believe the best way we can collectively honor our mothers is to honor the Mother’s Day holiday legacy of peace and reconciliation. Working together, finding common ground, being patient with each other, and treating each other well even when we disagree. And above all, keeping a sense of humor. Are there gifts greater than these?

The post The Hand That Rocks the Cradle: A Mother’s Day Retrospective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But if you’re looking for something on libertarian history by a non-libertarian who tries to be fair, but is also relatively critical and who comes from outside of the libertarian echo chamber—it may be worth your time.

The author of this new book, wrote an article this week for The Hill entitled, “The Libertarian Party is Collapsing. Here’s Why.” The short answer he gives, near as I can tell, is “racism”.

In it, he credits Gary Johnson’s 2016 run as the Libertarian Party’s “greatest triumph”, so one would assume that he is referring to a collapse post-Johnson. Although he resists naming names rather than defining crowds, there are only so many new developments to point to during that time. He relies heavily on reporting from places like The Southern Poverty Law Center and The Nation for the generalizations—both of which have been highly critical of the Mises Caucus wing of the party specifically, which is mentioned in the article.

His attacks on libertarianism run from those that seem absurd at first glance (he sees big government response to COVID as a case for big government rather than for libertarianism), to those that are pedestrian (he claims government is necessary to address large challenges like climate change and healthcare), to more interesting fare (comparing arguments common of modern libertarians to great libertarian thinkers of the past).

There’s obviously plenty to disagree with from a libertarian point of view, but to a certain extent politics is just the art of disagreement, best played by engaging with competing ideas. The day his Hill article was published, I talked to him about all this, and let him make his case.

TLR: This is Gary Doan of The Libertarian Republic and I’m talking to Andrew Koppelman. He’s a professor of law and political science at the prestigious Northwestern University, who’s often focused on the intersection of those two disciplines. He hails from University of Chicago and Yale law school, was a fellow at Harvard and Princeton, and to be honest, he has too many educational bonafides to be wasting his time talking to The Libertarian Republic. I’m happy he is all the same. His new book is entitled “Burning Down The House: How The Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted By Delusion And Greed”. Andrew, thanks for talking with me.

AK: Thanks for having me.

TLR: You recently wrote an article in The Hill entitled, “The Libertarian Party Is Collapsing. Here’s Why”, which was critical of the most modern iteration of the Libertarian Party, especially the Mises Caucus wing, which recently took control during the Reno reset. It’s full of charges of racism, selfishness, and greed festering in that institution as well as implications of external manipulation by the alt-right. Seems to have upset the usual suspects. Before getting into the details, what’s a summary of the “why” that’s the general gist of it? And did you reach out to any of the members of the LNC or Mises Caucus leadership before publishing for comment, and if so what was their response to it?

AK: Just relied on publicly available sources that had been pretty thoroughly reported by others. I do political philosophy. I was trying to think about the very narrow question of what are racists doing in the Libertarian Party to begin with, because there’s something puzzling about this. Libertarianism is foundationally concerned with the liberty of everybody. Equality seems to be baked into libertarianism. And so there’s just something very weird about these folks being here at all. It’s like having vegetarians in a butcher shop.

And so you’ve got to have some explanation for what are they doing here. And that’s something that I thought that I could contribute something to, and something that I really hadn’t talked about at all in my book, because while my book is critical of libertarianism and talks about the most prominent libertarian thinkers, none of them are racists. There’s not a single major libertarian theorist, who, as part of their basic philosophy, appeals to racism in any way. And most of them explicitly and vehemently repudiate it. So it’s just puzzling. What are these people doing here?

And my explanation is that there is a certain emotional appeal, first of all, to opposing civil rights laws. Barry Goldwater was not a racist. But once he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that became an attraction of libertarian ideology for many people who were much less admirable than Goldwater himself. As a general matter, the fantasy of separating yourself out from a population you don’t like, is part of the appeal of this ideology. I am not saying that libertarianism itself is racist. I try to make very clear that that’s not what I’m saying. And I quote Ayn Rand’s repudiation of racism, but there’s something going on here that demands explanation.

TLR: Let me hold on to that racism thing for a little bit there. You’ve described the party as being quote, torn apart by an alt-right insurgency with racist tendencies and that was where you seem to first go to with this. I guess you could call it an extension to your book, hitting libertarianism from another end—or at least some modern libertarianism or a faction of it. When you say ‘alt-right insurgency with racist tendencies’, are you referring to the Mises Caucus specifically? Assuming you are, are you referring to the entire caucus, some of their ranks, or their leader–

AK: There are elements that are concentrated within the caucus. But once again, I have not done original reporting. I’m relying on secondary sources that are already out there and not- you know, reporters who are, I thought, quite reliable. But this is my claim. If you want to interrogate that claim, you need to go to the sources that I was relying on.

TLR: Some more reliable than the others. You know, some of it’s just like, Southern Poverty Law Center, stuff like that, but I’m sure there’s more reputable ones as well, because… I actually don’t disagree that there is a problem to be addressed that you’re alluding to, but–

AK: So the libertarians I’ve talked to- this seems to be common knowledge in the libertarian community. And the tendency has been there ever since the Ron Paul newsletters and some of the stuff that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard wrote. So, I mean, this is our long-standing problem. It’s not something that I was not aware that there was any controversy about the fact that there were such elements.

TLR: Yeah, I mean, part of it, you alluded to with pointing to loaded words like “moocher” from Rand’s writing and so forth that can be taken… Obviously, Lew Rockwell and the Paul newsletters, you know, at most charitable are tone deaf to their whistles. I’m gonna return to the racism critique in just a second, here.

But when I think of the Libertarian Party’s greatest triumphs, I think of things like shifting the conversation in ways that led to ending the draft, lessening the extant prohibition through state-led legalization and decrim efforts, reminding conservatives of their anti-war history, and a respect at least in the rhetoric for free markets and making their promotion acceptable to the right, presenting progressives with concrete proposals in the realm of criminal justice reform, and leading the way early on ending modern forms of discriminatory practices, like bans on gay marriage, offering serious proposals on entitlement reform and foreign policy realism—all through shift in the narrative. They’ve contributed to all this despite remaining on the fringe, both in the direct electoral numbers since it’s pretty low, and while being handicapped by a decent amount of in-house crazies. But they’ve–

AK: All that seems to me to be fair. I’m not sure how much of it is the party and how much of it is a more general shift in the culture. But one of the things that I try to make clear about in my book is that libertarians were right about quite a lot of things. But there is- I have a lot of admiration for Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and Richard Epstein. And I think that even the more romantic varieties like Rothbard or Rand have some real attractions to what they have to offer. It really is the case that I don’t even need to go through examples because you just gave a lot of them.

The reason why I wrote the book is because there are books out there about libertarianism, which are sort of introductions, to the general reader. And they’re written by very smart people. David Boaz wrote a good book. Jason Brennan has a good book. But they’re not critical. They don’t try to sort out, alright, where did this come from? And what are the different forms? And how does it hold up as a political philosophy? Because that’s what libertarianism is—at its core, it is a political philosophy. It needs to be examined with the tools of political philosophy, which is what I have to offer. I’m a professor.

TLR: In your book. I mean, the title “Burning Down the House”. So you’ve described libertarianism as a philosophy that advocates of state power be absolutely minimized. When I’ve heard you talk about your book- I’m actually a huge fan of the history podcast that you were recently on, even though I know the hosts aren’t all that libertarian. But when I’ve heard you talk about your book, you began with a story about a partially privatized fire department, which looked on, let a house be burned down for non payment of fire insurance.

AK: And, right, the guy had, you know, he was getting old, he forgot to make his payment. The consequence was, the fire department came to his house and watched as it burned down. And the reason why it’s particularly interesting is that there was a debate in the public press about whether this was appropriate behavior on the part of the fire department. And it was happening in the middle of the debate about Obamacare. And so everybody understood that this was really a debate about Obamacare. The question was, should everybody be responsible for dealing for their own misfortunes? Or is it legitimate to have communal institutions to protect people? When unexpected bad things happen? Such as a fire?

TLR: Yeah. However, libertarian runs this spectrum, from anarchism to various degrees of minarchism. I know plenty of libertarians who are moderate (by libertarian standards, of course), including myself who aren’t calling to privatize the police or fire departments who aren’t all regular–

AK: Yeah, the question the book is trying to answer is how did we go from Hayek’s moderate attack on socialism, which was absolutely right, and I think really has carried the day. I don’t think there is anything in the Road to Serfdom that would be rejected by Joseph Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or even Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. They all think that we want to have a free market economy. The question is how large a welfare state is appropriate. But none of them want to nationalize the means of production. And yet, the idea of letting a house burn down would have seemed really weird to Hayek.

And so another puzzle is, how did we get from there to what happened in Tennessee? And I think it’s because of the advent of more extreme ideas, such as the ideas of Murray Rothbard, which are increasingly influential. And so then we have to look at the ideas and ask well, so what do we think of Rothbardian ideas? Are they or are they not an improvement on Hayek? Because Rothbard understood that he had deep disagreements with Hayek, and that there was just a fundamentally different philosophy being offered.

TLR: You said that a libertarian focus on individual rights seems flatly inconsistent with racism. Do you believe that combating something as irrational and repugnant as racism is best achieved through a focus on individual rights or a focus on group rights and why?

AK: Well, I’m, myself, not much interested in group rights. Since group rights have not turned up in libertarian thought, which I focused on, except in something that was too esoteric to even get into in the column. There are people like Hans Hermann Hoppe who argued that we should look at national borders as a sort of property right. And illegal aliens as a kind of trespasser. There is a strange notion of property here that has some very odd entailments. So, Hoppe is the only libertarian I can think of that comes anywhere near to thinking about group rights.

But I’m an individualistic liberal. I think that groups are interesting only to the extent that there are people who suffer injustices as a member of a group, and that you can notice these group patterns and try to fight them. And there are questions about reparations and what you do about those, which is just a whole different set of questions. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, cites a speaker’s book making a case for black reparations, with approval, saying, ‘Well, you know, maybe that’s possible’. But it’s a whole different set of questions than fundamental questions about what does a just society look like? Remedying past wrongs raises a distinctive set of problems which I haven’t gotten into at all in this book.

TLR: You just described yourself as a liberal. What do you believe is the difference between libertarianism and classical liberalism, if any?

AK: Well, the liberalism, as I identify with, does not have the kind of suspicion of the state of classical liberals like Richard Epstein and Milton Friedman. So you know, with what you’re trying to bring about, I want to bring about a world in which people are free to decide for themselves what their lives are going to be. And the fundamental difference between me and the libertarians is that they purport to want that too, but a minimal state will not deliver you that. A minimal state will deliver you conditions in which lots of people find their hopes thwarted at every turn.

One example that I think presents a real problem for a Rothbardian. And I end the book with an argument among old Rothbards about this is how do you deal with large misfortune that violates nobody’s rights, such as the outbreak of deadly disease. Such as COVID. And the way in which we managed to get COVID sufficiently under control that we could go back to our lives was through massive government taxation and spending. The government gave enormous amounts of money to pharmaceutical companies that would not have undertaken the vaccine research on their own because it was too risky. And as a result, we got a vaccine. And as a result, the death rate is far lower than it would have been if we had had an absolutely minimal state, or for a Rothbardian, no state at all. And so that suggests to me that if you want people to be free to conduct their lives as they like, a minimal state is not the way to deliver that.

TLR: Some of the people you seem to have chosen from that book, nobody can really disagree contributed a lot to libertarian thought. I mean, especially the Hayek, Rothbard, the Friedmans, and so forth. Hoppe I’m a little uncomfortable with, but makes sense. But one of the ones who you included was Ayn Rand, who was famously contemptuous of libertarianism. She called us a monstrous, disgusting group of people. She called us amoral plagiarists lower than Marxists.

AK: She was a very difficult person. (laughter) But, libertarians understand that she is enormously influential in the way that libertarians think. Someone once wrote a book about libertarianism, with the title, ‘It Usually Starts With Ayn Rand’. And that’s accurate. And she offered herself as a philosopher with strong affinities with libertarianism. She was extremely friendly for a while with Rothbard. Although, as with everybody else in her life, she eventually drove them away. And so I try to take her seriously as a writer and thinker. But, you know, as the person who was traumatized by living through the Russian Revolution, which involved massive corruption, incompetence, mass murder, and I think all her life, she was traumatized by that. But I try not to get into the biographical details, and I really tried to take her seriously as a thinker, because lots of libertarians take her seriously as a thinker. And so I try to look at her as a philosopher and ask – alright, so how good a philosopher is she? And the answer is not very good. But I think that you’re only entitled to say that if you take her seriously, seriously, look at her arguments.

TLR: There is a lot of overlap with objectivism, even past positions with a certain strain of respect for the kind of more individualistic anti-collectivism thrust of her work compared to what I see libertarian as, myself. Do you believe American libertarianism is right wing, left wing, neither, or something that draws for both?

AK: Well, it’s hard to classify because I mean, the the American right and the American left, both are clusters of the views in a two party system. People are going to have to form coalitions if they want to get anything done. And so each party clusters together all of us that don’t necessarily have anything intrinsically to do with one another? If you are in favor of tax cuts in American politics, you are probably against abortion. But those two really haven’t got anything to do with one another. So I just try to take libertarianism seriously as just the proposition that we’ll be freer if we reduce the state to little or nothing. And that’s a distinctive proposition. And I think it can be taken on its own terms without trying to locate it in a larger political currents.

TLR: One of the things you point out with the racism thing was that one of the changes to the LP platform that the Mises Caucus first made was to replace the words ‘we condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant’. And it’s presented as evidence of racism—as a reason for party defections of longtime members have been pretty strong since then. However, it was replaced with the words ‘we uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity’. What in your view is a major difference between the two statements from an actual public policy standpoint that makes them significantly enough different to focus on?

AK: I think it was generally understood that the deletion was more important than the addition. And it is, in fact, the reason why there were these mass defections from the party—which, if I’m right, was one of the things that was hoped would occur.

TLR: I mean, I can argue that there’s been some success if that’s an actual strategy rather than outcome. You infer also in your article that the Republican Party donors have been promoting the LPMC as a strategy specifically to destroy the party, which has been draining away Republican votes. You point out that had Trump gotten 100% of the LP vote in 2020, he would have won. However, exit polling has been pretty consistent among presidential elections showing roughly a third of LP voters without the libertarian option would have voted Democrat, a third wouldn’t have voted at all. It tends to be a third, a third, a third in most elections, more or less. How do you square the fear you think the GOP has of the LP with those numbers showing that it takes pretty evenly from both major parties?

AK: I simply note and again, here I’m relying on much more experienced reporters than me, people like The Nation who said, these are the people who have historically been associated with Trump and are financing the effort. They seem to be under the impression that they’re hoping to accomplish by doing that.

TLR: You claim part of the appeal of libertarianism to some Americans is racism. However, libertarians have led the way on plenty of issues that have had disproportionate effects on communities of color. They’ve opposed the drug war, they’ve opposed qualified immunity and the militarization of police and as acting as agents of the state against peaceful people. They’ve opposed zoning policies that segregated cities, and occupational licensing restrictions, and supported school choice, which they believe improves access to quality education for those trapped in low income government schools separated by zip code. They supported increased immigration and oppose Trump’s wall. They’ve described the military industrial complex as rich people sending the poor off to die fighting in countries already at a socioeconomic disadvantage themselves. Are there any issues other than reducing some social welfare programs or adding in work requirements or thinking some portions of the Civil Rights Act in the 60s were antithetical to the freedom of association… in libertarian thought than in the various iterations of the Republican or Democratic parties?

AK: Again, I’m not attacking libertarian thought, which, as I say in the book, you know, I barely talk about racism because it is not a significant part of libertarian thought. But with respect to those issues, like opposing civil rights laws, opposing welfare—or some people, that’s really all they care about. And all of the other aspects of the libertarian platform, which really would benefit African Americans, they don’t care about those one way or the other. By that, I mean, no question, getting rid of occupational licensing with respect to many professions like hairdressing, braiding where it’s just silly to have licensing? That would benefit African Americans, no question about it. But the folks I’m talking about don’t care about that one way or the other.

TLR: One of the things that separates libertarians from libertines is they’re focused on concepts like responsibility and self reliance, right? However, I think most libertarians would agree that reducing the government as radically as they’d like would require communities, societies, voluntary organizations to replace that government intervention—that excessive government interventions have stunted those types of institutions, right? I mean, some libertarians may be overly optimistic about human nature being strong enough to drive charity and mutual aid that’s adequate enough to take over those government functions. But doesn’t this expectation they have of community over central control sort of speak against libertarianism being exclusively individualistic or selfish pursuit?

I think you used the word autarky. But an expectation that communities and societies are stronger and more resilient than governments, if left to thrive, doesn’t seem to be something at peace with the kind of view of libertarianism as solitary, lonely, uncaring. So I guess my final question is, if you could make your pitch, that placing stuff like communities and social organizations and families above or at least separate from government realms—is that something that is delusional or greedy or attracts people who are delusional or greedy?

AK: Well, the place where I think that the alignment of delusion, greed is most clear, is in the area of regulation. And the book concludes by talking about the climate catastrophe that is occurring, that has been abetted by petroleum industry led by Charles Koch, who’s the most important libertarian in the United States today. In which, simultaneously, rests on a philosophy that really doesn’t do a very good job of thinking about pollution, and industries that will benefit financially by the absence of regulation—and who aren’t particularly principled at all. And they work in tandem together. So that’s the alignment of delusion and greed.

But with respect to the capacity of communities to step up and help one another, and you know, quite a lot of libertarians do hope that if you were able to reduce the footprint of the national government that people would step up. I think that it is a bigger ask than you’ve ever given to voluntary associations. Well, first of all, it’s not clear how voluntary associations could possibly deal with pollution. It’s very hard- I mean, how do you sue somebody in tort for warming up the planet? It is not something that can be done with anything but regulation.

And then some of the redistribution involved health care for poor people who get really bad diseases is far more expensive than the charity care that existed in the early 20th century. Some illnesses cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, and either there is communal insurance for it, or the private charity system will be overwhelmed. This is matter of prediction, and different people have different predictions. Richard Epstein is very smart guy and he thinks that private charity would step up and do it. I just don’t believe it.

TLR: I was going to have that be my last question. But now that you say that, I did want to touch on one thing with the climate concerns. Near as I can tell, at least in 2022—it seems like most people from the side of Republicans, Democrats and libertarians, although they might not agree with the degree, I think most people are generally on board with believing climate change is real, impactful and impacted by human activity. I think that’s pretty well understood by most serious people on all three sides.

And the way I see it, all three sides are are giving some kind of solutions about it, right? Like the libertarians would say, ‘Oh, well, one of the problems with carbon emissions is the federal government’s failure to timely give out anything for new nuclear permitting for fear of the science of nuclear power. Or they might say, Well, what about carbon credits that can be bought and sold on the open market as a way to have market input and trading done on pollution to impose external costs that exist, which, there might be some problems with how you quantify that or whatever. But it’s been one idea that’s been put forth. And one of the things you mentioned was property rights claims, which might be easy to do if you’re actively polluting a river that then goes downstream somewhere, but it’s harder to do if you’re releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

And then you have, you know, the left, which is- just throw money at a whole bunch of different alternate fuel sources, which may or may not turn out to be efficient ones. Shutting down drilling before we’re ready. Until gas prices started getting higher. They did sometimes talk about making gas more expensive to incentivize that. But they didn’t seem to like, hold to that when it actually came because it was unpopular. And then you have Republicans who are just like, ‘yes, we know, it’s a problem. But we think the technology will just advance on its own. And we don’t think there’s much to do worth doing’.

My point is, why are the solutions that libertarians have put up there to address climate change better or worse than the solutions put up by people who are more left of center trying to address the same problems that libertarians are by supporting nuclear power and things like that?

AK: Well, the solutions that are most promising that are going to work? Well, the classic Hayekian solution is a tax on carbon, which actually was seriously proposed in the first Bush administration, and had Koch and Cato not worked so hard to spread fake science denying that anything was happening, that might have gone through.

And that really is the best solution. You just get people to incorporate the real costs of what they’re doing. And then the market creates incentives for people to come up with better technologies, what actually seems likely to do some good… because you know, all over the world, people don’t want to stay poor, they want to raise their standard of living, and they’re going to burn coal if they have to, in order to achieve that. And so the only way to stop them from warming the planet themselves is to come up with better technologies, and hand them to them on a platter and say here, don’t burn coal, do this instead.

And that’s the kind of research supported by government that gave us the COVID vaccine. And you’ve quite a lot of that kind of research funded in the climate bill that Biden just pushed through. And I think that that’s our only hope. You are not going to build massive nuclear plants in countries that are too poor to afford them.

TLR: Could you remind anyone reading this of the title of your book and where they can find it?

AK: The book is Burning Down The House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted By Delusion And Greed. I’m Andrew Koppelman. If you go looking on the internet, you’ll find copies of the book, very affordably priced, I’m happy to say 28.99. And if you read it, and you’re not persuaded by it, I want to hear from you and I want to hear why.

The post Koppelman’s Critiques of Libertarianism: Racism, Delusion, and Corruption appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

You’ve come a long way, baby. But we’re not done yet. Today we’re discussing your favorite topic — you. You’re in the spotlight. But you can’t use Instagram filters or FUPA-slimming camera angles for this close-up. Can you allow yourself to feel exposed? Good. Doors are locked. Blinds are shut. Drapes pulled tight. It’s just you and me. Let’s begin.

17. Political people are not your friends. If you think 2 percent of your political acquaintances will be there for you when things get ugly, you’re deluding yourself by 100 percent to the upside.

Ask Jeff Smith how many people came to visit him in federal prison when he was locked up for campaign finance violations.

I know, I know. You think you’re special. You’re the exception to this rule, aren’t you? You’re not.

Expect very little from your political acquaintances. The relationships are almost always symbiotic and/or transactional.

18. Actionable item: Once you accept that political people are not your friends, take meaningful action to not be a political person. Refuse to revert to the mean.

Hey Republicans: Why haven’t you reached out to David Barklage in the months since he was indicted for tax evasion? “Because I’m a selfish right-wing pig and he might no longer be of use to me,” is a better answer than whatever your defensive mind is rationalizing right now. You managed to find his e-mail and cell number when you needed advice, a job referral, or when your piddly state rep campaign needed a couple end-of-quarter fundraising favors. But you haven’t taken five minutes to offer him something, anything, in the five most arduous months of his life, which included the death of his mother. Will you allow yourself to lift your head up, take a brief and uncomfortable moment to think about your words, and reach out to him today? Or will you sit there with your hunched back and craned neck and mindlessly scroll your social accounts after you read this? Don’t answer. I already know.

Dear Democrats: Do you know where former state Rep. Courtney Curtis (D-Ferguson) is serving time? No, because he’s out of sight and out of mind. “But he violated the public truuusssst!” you moan in a nasally National Public Radio voice. You can manufacture crocodile tears for confessed triple-murderers on death row, but you can’t demonstrate genuine compassion and empathy for a man who carried your flag for years in Ferguson. He just switched prisons. Here’s his new address. You could write him today, but you won’t. You’ll be too busy compulsively checking your phone to see who’s liked your latest snarky hot take on masks or the Facebook picture of your “fur babies.” Won’t you?

If you’ve never been publicly hammered (attacked, not drunk), open this link in a new tab and read it when you’re done here: “Faughn: What I learned when I got knocked off my horse.”

Would you — yes, you — like to be judged by your worst moments and poorest decisions? I’m looking doubly hard at you, Christian conservatives.

19. Politics, and political journalism, are dream jobs for those who choose to be mentally unwell. Do you “thrive in a fast-paced environment” and love working “under pressure?” These are often coping euphemisms for, “I am addicted to chaos” and, “I don’t believe I deserve peace.”

If there’s a void in your heart that must be filled by others’ praise, step right up and run for the General Assembly. Don’t worry that you’ll become complacent once you get elected — that’s just the beginning. To steal and contort a promo from the late 20th-century philosopher Paul Levesque — you’re working in Jefferson City during legislative session. Your wife is at home, what’s she doing? Don’t know. Your husband is at home, what’s he doing? Don’t know. You get home from Jeff City on Thursday night, congrats — the work is just starting. Now you’ve got to be super-husband, super-wife, super-mom, super-dad.

Journalists, how does it feel to report on the actions of elected officials, staffers, lobbyists, and business people whom you’re conditioned to believe are not nearly as smart as you? They don’t even have a journalism degree, for Pulitzer’s sake! But they make bank. At least, the don’t-have-to-worry-about-rent-or-gas-or-beer kind of bank. Must be nice. Meanwhile, you’re always on deadline. Finish it up. Good enough. Hit send. God forbid you get a name or statistic wrong, or some prick in Chesterfield with a hobby blog will call you out by name in the morning.

20. Actionable item: If you hope to be mentally well one day, minimize the role of politics in your identity today. Disclosure: I am batshit crazy. Certified. But this entire “20 for 20” is about you, not me, so I’ll keep holding the mirror up to you.

For starters, you probably care too much about being offended or offending others. If you haven’t read the FAQ for readers and journalists, here’s abridged #2: “If you’re an adult who feels emotionally triggered by the wording of Missouri political news headlines, I’d suggest seeking help from a mental health professional. Concurrently, I’d also suggest investing time identifying exactly why a headline signaling a potentially differing view on a public policy topic moves you down the emotional scale.”

Secondly, you’re likely obsessing over insignificant distractions. To quote native Missourian Dana Loesch, in her latest book Grace Cancelled: You don’t have to attend every fight you’re invited to (p.141).

Liberals: Some flapjack wino whose candidate you beat last election is calling you a “Karen” on Twitter and desperately trying to make a hashtag about it happen. Your heart rate accelerates every time you see a Twitter notification pop up on your phone. (You choose to receive notifications because you’re addicted to fight-or-flight stress hormones.) You’re losing sleep at night. Is your reputation in your district or your region so fragile that a Twitter troll will end your career? No, it’s not. You don’t have to attend every fight you’re invited to.

Conservatives: Some neckbeard soyboy with pronouns in his Twitter profile is offended by something you wrote. That’s right — a grown man is claiming to be injured not by your physical actions, not by your fists or your feet or your firearms — but by your words. Even better is when he’s offended on behalf of someone else. Maybe he even calls you a racist. That word meant something five years ago, pre-Trump Derangement Syndrome. Today, like the Fed money printer going Brrrrrr, there’s so much of that currency flying around everywhere that it lost its value. After all, everything is racist today — heat is racist and roads are racist and having to avoid deer on the drive home exemplifies white privilege. Hell, NPR even convicted Dave Chappelle of white privilege. Should you or Chappelle respond? Say it with me: You don’t have to attend every fight you’re invited to.

Here’s the tricky thing: Success in politics is, by definition, based on external validation. Candidates need votes. Consultants and lobbyists need clients. Journalists need readers. You will never achieve a state of imperturbability — in practical application, being blissfully unaffected by others’ judgment of you — if you internalize the political crowd’s opinion.

I recommend “the position of f- you” over “imperturbability”, but I’m notoriously based.

As we conclude, I’m going to challenge your identity. This is the deepest cut. Ready?

You are not your stump speech. You know what I mean. That tapestry of anecdotes and humblebrags and pseudo-adversity tales you’ve intricately weaved over the years. You deliver it with feigned aw-shucks spontaneity at freshman legislator bus tours and Day 1 “quick introductions” and newsroom meetings and sometimes on the literal campaign stump.

Contrary to most self-help blather and inspiration porn, you are not “the sum of all your experiences” stored in your brain. Those memories of your past are faulty and filled with self-soothing lies you’ve told yourself for decades.

Here’s what’s true: You are not your elected office. You are not your legislative committee chairmanship, or your chief of staff status, or your new title at the lobbying shop. And you are not your botched bills, or the bumbling TV interview you wish you could do over, or that time you got ratioed on Twitter.

You are not your journalism portfolio. You are not Missouri Press Association awards or your “experienced multimedia journalist” résumé puffery. No more than you are your five-figure salary or your student loan debt or your typos or your denied Twitter blue-check application. 

No, you are not your stump speech. You are pure consciousness. Now, never the past. Your most valuable asset is your ability to make good decisions. You already made one, as you chose to read this long, this deep. You were gifted nine presents in #1-#18. Which ones will you choose to unwrap and explore? Of those, which will you adopt to make your own and master and share with the world?

This was about you. From the song linked in the Part 1 introduction all the way to this paragraph. From October 2001 to October 2021. And it’s been my pleasure. Every day for 20 years. See you tomorrow morning.

20 for 20, Part 1: The evolution of Missouri journalism and how you can benefit
20 for 20, Part 2: Two NEW profitable hustles for the 2022 and 2024 Missouri campaign cycles
20 for 20, Part 3: Casting call: Missouri politics is pro wrestling and needs a new top heel
20 for 20, Part 4: How to benefit from Missourians’ addictions to victimhood and smartphones

The post 20 for 20, Part 5: You Are Not Your Stump Speech appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Petersen had this to say about Ashcroft possibly running for Governor, “Exciting news to see… I don’t like many politicians – very, very few – and I like the Ashcrofts. Jay Ashcroft seems to be a little bit more fiscally conservative then the senior.” This was in reference to Jay Ashcroft being the son of former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Petersen’s co-host, John Marsh, mentioned that Jay Ashcroft has not discussed future plans since last year when Ashcroft said, “After intense, prayerful consideration we have decided to remain devoted to the work Missouri voters have entrusted me as secretary of state” in regards to running for United States Senate, to replace the senior senator from Missouri, Senator Roy Blunt.

Petersen and Marsh also discussed Ashcroft’s recent conservative positions, many posted on the KWOS website, including being opposed to the gas tax increase that the Missouri Legislature passed last year. Current Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed that gas tax increase into law.

Jay Ashcroft has yet to release a public statement regarding the breaking news yesterday morning.

The full segment from the show can be listened to below.

The post Is Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Laying Groundwork for 2024 Gubernatorial Run? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

However, there are some who have proven to be a cut above the average commentator that are worth reading or listening to consistently. The six individuals outlined in this article are just that—each unafraid to speak their mind and stand for what they think in today’s political climate. If you read or listen to any of these people, you are bound to come out knowing more or having a better understanding of right-wing politics, its many factions, and what these critical thinkers see as important. Even in disagreement, this can only result in a more vibrant discussion about the state and future of America.

Charles C. W. Cooke

A senior writer for the National Review, Charles C.W. Cooke represents a truly conservatarian mindset when it comes to politics. He is always weary of state authority and its outstanding impacts. Alongside that, he conveys an authentic view on current affairs. Recently, he presented his distaste for the lawyer who is again assaulting Masterpiece Cakeshop, and blasted CNN for essentially parroting CCP propaganda. Furthermore, the fact that he is from Britain (as sad as that may be) broadens his perspective beyond the typical American understanding of politics. You can read his work at National Review, as well as listen to the podcasts he is featured on.

Richard A. Epstein

Professor Richard Epstein is one of two intellectuals from the University of Chicago on this list. Epstein is one of the most influential scholars of the twentieth century alongside other heavyweight thinkers, such as Noam Chomsky. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, both writing his views in great detail for the Defining Ideas column and articulating his positions on his podcast The Libertarian. Just by listening to a short 15 to 25 minute podcast, your understanding of the American political system and laws will be enhanced.

Kimberly A. Strassel

One of the smaller names on the list, Kimberly Strassel acquits herself well among the right’s premier writers. Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and one of the members of the Potomac Watch podcast. In both roles, she offers in-depth analysis on a variety of issues ranging from New York City mayoral elections to the failure of Biden’s federal action in the courts. Her general ideas and perspective are reminiscent of the fusionist mindset that has led to Republican victories and national popularity through the past few decades.

Matt Welch

As an editor-at-large for Reason Magazine, Matt Welch has been one of the standard bearers of libertarianism, going after any and all state policies with a critical eye. This goes for anything including family policy, criminal justice, privacy, and the most libertarian topic, bitcoin. For those interested in the libertarian side of things, Welch is a reasonable guy, willing to hold the line and express well-constructed criticisms of government action. He is a good choice to introduce people to the rabbit hole that is libertarianism.

Kevin D. Williamson

The second National Review man on this list is a force to be reckoned with. Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for the National Review, but he has been published in numerous other outlets, as well as having written two books. What really defines Williamson as a commentator is his unwillingness to conform his language to common parlance. He expresses his opinions in his own way—so much so that The Atlantic fired him just three days after his first piece was published. He holds no real partisan convictions, routinely criticizing former president Donald Trump, the totally-not-cultish Trumpists, and both big business and big government. If you are looking for someone who calls it as they see it, there is no better choice than Kevin D. Williamson.

Luigi Zingales

Last but certainly not least, Professor Luigi Zingales is an economist at the University of Chicago who has no shortage of ideas and opinions about how to improve the world we all live in. In particular, he is a leading voice against what he sees to be concentrated political and market power among tech firms, and a strong advocate for democracy and cooperation. You can find his views on his podcast Capitalisn’t and in the publication Promarket. Zingales may not be distinctly conservative, but he offers important commentary on the current shortcomings of our economic system and provides unique avenues to address those problems.

Why Listen?

Each of these individuals is a great addition to your daily news and opinion consumption, but what makes this list unique is the fact that it is not homogenous. The diversity of perspective is worthwhile in itself for anyone who wants to have a multifaceted view of the world and supports vigorous debate.

Issues like the power of big tech, supreme court decisions, economic policy, and others are all viewed distinctively between each of the authors. Listening to these diverse opinions will broaden your own perspective, make you better able to defend your own positions,  and give you a more holistic view of the conflicts that present themselves in the world as we know it.

The post 6 Must-Read Commentators You Should Listen To appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Two weeks into his first term, President Biden is redefining “the power of the pen.” As of early February, America’s 46th president has signed 28 executive orders into law, just short of the number that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed in his first month. (Roosevelt is the record-holder for executive orders signed in a president’s first month, with 30.)

Here is more: After one month in office, Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama signed a total of 28 executive orders combined. President Biden’s two-week total surpasses the combined first-month totals for Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter. The Biden total does not even include 10 presidential memoranda, five substantive proclamations, and two letters rejoining the World Health Organization and Paris climate accords.

The last two weeks have been unprecedented, made all the more extraordinary by the Biden administration’s pledge to bridge our political divides and unify America. In his inaugural address, President Biden put it this way, “History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity. We can see each other not as adversaries, but as neighbors.”

He could not be more right. In today’s world of hyper-polarization, good-faith Americans can and should come together to ease our political tensions. Unity is a worthwhile pursuit for Democrats and Republicans alike.

However, presidential action needs to match the aspirational rhetoric for Americans to coalesce around it. President Biden’s recent run of executive orders does nothing to advance the goal of unity. Of course, some level of executive action was to be expected, as the president repeatedly promised to reverse the Trump agenda on the campaign trail. But the majority of President Biden’s executive orders are novel, implementing new policies rather than undoing Trump-era ones.

On top of that, many of President Biden’s executive orders fail to build on or produce broad-based consensus. These include the executive action on gender identity, a reversed ban on transgender troops, and his slew of mandates related to “environmental justice.” While such policies may be worth pursuing, it is curious that they would come so soon into the Biden presidency—a presidency that moderate and even center-right Americans could ostensibly celebrate (see here or here). Government by fiat, in service of a liberal agenda, clashes with the concept of “moderate Joe.”

In truth, both Democrats and Republicans should be concerned about President Biden’s newfound obsession with executive orders.

For Republicans, the concern is obvious—executive action on gender identity or so-called “environmental justice is not ideologically aligned with traditional conservatism. For Democrats, however, the Biden administration’s style of governance continues America’s descent down a slippery slope, whereby the executive branch can pursue ideological aims with the stroke of a pen and without reaching across the aisle. Move too far to the left, and Democrats risk a future Republican president imposing a similarly partisan agenda without the help of Congress. President Biden is essentially incentivizing a future version of Trump to favor unilateral action that may be deemed controversial by a wide range of Americans, as opposed to building bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Which brings us to the main point: In recent decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have repeatedly failed to build such coalitions (or failed even to try), opting instead for the “easy way out” through executive action. Ironically, President Trump himself referred to executive orders as an “easy way out,” only to rely on them repeatedly while in office.

This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. The excessive use of presidential power is suboptimal regardless of our political persuasions. For the sake of unity, Americans need the executive and legislative branches to work together on common-sense solutions.

When President Obama praises his former vice president’s executive orders, claiming “this is a time for boldness,” it alienates large swaths of the general public. Post-Trump, millions of Americans expected and voted for unity, not “boldness.” Similarly, when President Trump praises his own “bold” and “historic” executive orders, their potential justification does nothing to alleviate the burdens of hyper-polarization. And our political discourse suffers.

We need to preach and practice unity, and that starts at the top. May the next four years of the Biden presidency be more unifying than its first two weeks.

Luka Ladan serves as president and CEO of Zenica Public Relations. He graduated from Vassar College with a B.A. in Political Science and Correlate Sequence in International Economics.

Republished with permission from Catalyst, a project of the Independent Institute.

The post Biden’s Executive Orders Continue a Dangerous Precedent appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The previous year in the United States was a turbulent one, filled with political strife, protests over racism and a devastating pandemic. Underlying all three has been a pervasive political polarization, made worse by a breakdown in civic – and civil – discourse, not only on Capitol Hill, but around the nation.

In a new year, with a new president and a new Congress, there appears to be opportunity. Americans, starting with the president, are talking about turning away from the division of the recent past and choosing a different direction: talking civilly and productively about the problems the country faces.

But how to do that? As a literary scholar, I appreciate the power of carefully crafted language, and I believe that Americans – from those in government to those around the dinner table – could take a lesson from one of this nation’s founders and greatest communicators: Benjamin Franklin.

From ‘positive Argumentation’ to ‘modest Diffidence’

Before he achieved fame as a statesman, scientist and diplomat, Franklin, who was born in 1706 and died in 1790, made his living in Philadelphia from words – as a printer, journalist and essayist.

Having worked early in his life in Boston for his brother James, a fiery journalist, he knew the kind of war that could be waged with words and had even made a hobby of debating with a young friend.

“We sometimes disputed,” Franklin recalled in his autobiography, “and very fond we were of Argument, & very desirous of confuting one another.”

Everything changed for Franklin, however, after he came across some examples of Socratic dialogue, in which questions figure prominently. “I was charm’d with it,” Franklin wrote, “adopted it, dropt my abrupt Contradiction, and positive Argumentation, and put on the humble Enquirer & Doubter.”

The inspired Franklin eventually changed his entire manner of discourse, communicating “in terms of modest Diffidence” instead of positive assertion, dropping words such as “certainly” and “undoubtedly” and substituting “I should think it so or so” and “it is so, if I am not mistaken.”

After all, Franklin wrote, “a positive, assuming manner” tends to turn off an audience and thus undermines one’s own intentions.

Such positive assertion can interfere with the exchange of valuable information. “If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others,” Franklin wrote, “and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix’d in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error.”

In 2021, replacing positive assertions in conversations with some “terms of modest Diffidence” just might lead to exchanges that are not only more civil, but also more productive.

Pursuing truth, not victory

More important than modest expression is actual intellectual humility, and here again Franklin’s example is instructive. Even before he turned his inquiring mind to groundbreaking discoveries in electricity, he showed a scientist’s dedication to open, objective investigation with only truth as its object.

In 1727, when he was still in his early 20s, he founded a group called the Junto. Members, including a number of tradesmen like Franklin, took up political, philosophical and other questions such as “Does the Importation of Servants increase or advance the Wealth of our Country?” and “Wherein consists the Happiness of a rational Creature?”

The goal of these discussions, as Franklin explained, was not victory – as it apparently had been for Franklin and his friend years earlier – but something far more valuable for all concerned. Franklin explained that the discussions were to take place “in the sincere Spirit of Enquiry after Truth, without fondness for Dispute, or Desire of Victory.” Anyone who spoke too confidently or contentiously had to pay a small fine.

This preference for pursuing truth over seeking victory found expression in a question that initiates were required to answer: “Do you love and pursue truth for its own sake?” Franklin did, and the results speak for themselves.

Franklin also had a prescient understanding of biases that color humans’ understanding of reality.

Today, scientists have shown that people are susceptible to mere exposure effect, a preference for information we have encountered multiple times and confirmation bias, an inclination toward information that aligns with a person’s current beliefs. In an essay he published in the 1730s, Franklin wrote of the effect of “Prevailing Opinions” on the individual mind and observed, “A Man can hardly forbear wishing those Things to be true and right, which he apprehends would be for his Conveniency to find so.” He added, “That Man only, who is ready to change his Mind upon proper Conviction, is in the Way to come at the Knowledge of Truth.”

Franklin lived up to this principle. In 1751, he published an essay expressing reprehensible, racist views that were all too common in his era. Years later, however, he helped found schools to educate black children and, after visiting one, saw that the students were equal to white children in their ability to learn.

He wound up changing not only his mind but also his essay when he reprinted it almost two decades later, changing the passage that said that most slaves were thieves “by Nature” to say that they were thieves because of slavery.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

Near the end of his life, Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and submitted to Congress a petition to abolish slavery and end the slave trade.

‘Obliged by better information … to change opinions’

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin expressed his belief in intellectual humility. As James Madison recorded his words, Franklin said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

“It is therefore that the older I grow,” he added, “the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

Near the end of the speech, he implored others to adopt this same humility: “On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

As these words and experience testify, political polarization and dispute are nothing new. But Franklin managed to rise above the discord, biases and close-mindedness that are common in any era.

He spoke and wrote in ways that, if taken up now, could begin to erode the polarization of the current era: with modesty, diffidence, sincere consideration of others’ positions, doubt in his own infallibility and love of truth for its own sake.

Mark Canada, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Talking Politics in 2021: Lessons on Humility and Truth-seeking From Benjamin Franklin appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But we can’t deny it any longer. Irrefutable evidence stares us in the face when we turn on the news and log onto social media. It’s time we libertarians accept the truth as everyone else already has. Libertarians are the most powerful force for political and societal change this continent has ever seen!The political opposition expose their belief in this all the time. Remember when Ronald Reagan claimed the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism? Republicans, in response, wasted no time dragging conservatism away from limited government and free market principles. That was just too radical an idea for them, and we needed to be marginalized for the GOP to retain their control. You wouldn’t react like that to an irrelevant group that barely registers as a minor nuisance, would you?

When libertarians got involved in the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration pressured the IRS to harass affiliated groups and organizations. FreedomWorks, which had libertarians working within, was a target. Democrats wouldn’t stand for any societal change they didn’t engineer, and moved quickly to suppress libertarian influence before it expanded. Likewise, GOP cronies couldn’t sit idly by and used their resources and influence to sabotage the movement.

But that didn’t stop us! Instead, we’ve since moved the needle even further to the point that Tucker Carlson admitted libertarians (unbeknownst to us) practically own and operate Washington, DC. Most recently, we’ve even earned vitriol from a former CIA spook who claims “even libertarians” are part of an “unholy alliance!”

Last but not least, the mother of all proofs which demonstrate the raw power we command—libertarians are solely responsible for the outcome of every major election! For decades, our voter base (arguably the smallest demographic in the nation) has held the keys to the Oval Office, where just a simple nod or frown from us has the power to vault a major candidate to victory or devastate a campaign and lay it to waste.

So I’ve decided to drop denial like a bad habit, and accept our rightful place as rulers of the political galaxy. Fear us. Hate us. Or simply bow before us. Just know that we now know what you have already accepted— Libertarians run this show!

The post Libertarians: Movers, Shakers and Kingmakers in American Politics appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Crap.

Politicians and celebrities have been saying maddening things, completely mischaracterizing you, and you’ve just about had it. Even more insulting, the victor is now calling out to you.

“It’s time to unite and move forward together!”

It feels like the end of The Empire Strikes Back. You’ve lost a battle of red and blue lightsabers and now find yourself trapped at the end of a walkway suspended in the air. Your opponent reaches out, inviting you to join the Dark Side. You know that an undivided nation is important, but to join forces with the side that seems to oppose everything you believe? No thanks! You’d rather pull a Luke Skywalker and base jump off this antenna thing without a parachute.

You’re right not to embrace an ideology that you think is harmful. But that doesn’t mean the nation has to remain so fractured. You see, we’ve allowed ourselves to be sorted in all the wrong ways—by race and wealth, for example—and our political division has reached an unhealthy level. We’ve forgotten the ways we can come together where you advance your values—not abandon them. Ways that are empowering and satisfying, even if nobody you voted for ended up in office.

We need to rediscover the right way to unite.

STEP 1: Think (very) Local

We get caught up in the national races, and it’s easy to see why. National news and opinion shows have the largest budgets, and presidential elections make for a compelling story. But the federal races are also the ones where you have the least influence. You find yourself feeling frustrated and powerless, left to grumble at the headlines on your social media feed.

How about we focus closer to home? For a moment, don’t worry about uniting with the president. Or your governor. Zoom into your county, and then your city. All the way to the neighbors on your street, and your own friends and family. Especially the ones that you’re pretty sure voted differently than you did. Can you unite with a few of them? Maybe you can.

And why would you do this, you ask? It’s not simply to work on your personal relationships, as important as that is. And it’s not to make it easier for your political opponents to get things done that you don’t like. On the contrary. Uniting the right way enables you to make real progress toward your political goals, too, starting where you have the most influence.

You should feel a little empowered already, having just changed the game. It’s individual to individual now instead of you vs. half the nation.

STEP 2: Think Small

So, you’re standing next to your brother-in-law at your nephew’s birthday party. One of you is firmly on the right, and the other is immovable on the left. What could there be to unite on?

Here’s the secret: to be unified isn’t to see eye-to-eye on everything. (Have you ever been married?) Your goal right now isn’t to both end up on the same side of the aisle, or to convince each other of anything, really. It’s to spend a little time digging through issues and positions and philosophies to find the veins and nuggets of agreement that are already there. You have a headlamp and a pickaxe, and you’re looking for gold.

You might start with immigration and the border. Chances are, you and your brother-in-law aren’t in full agreement here. And that’s fine! Use that pickaxe of yours and break it down into smaller pieces. Take a look at the idea of a border wall, a possible path to citizenship for those here illegally, and national security considerations. Disagree on all of these, too? Break them up even further to look for those nuggets.

When you find a chunk of policy where you disagree and can’t see how to break it down further, no problem! Don’t feel like you’ve failed if you haven’t convinced him to see it your way, and don’t feel pressure to rethink your worldview to align with his. Resist the temptation to try to change each other right now. Instead, set it aside into a metaphorical bin labeled “maybe later” and move on. Not because you’re afraid of conflict, but because arguing about it hurts what you’re trying to do at the moment.

Sometimes all you can come together on is your overarching goal—that you want people to be safe, or happy, or have a chance. This is a nugget, too.

Don’t give up. Keep looking for the points where you already agree, however small. The bits add up, and it will be worth it.

STEP 3: Think Long-term

Now that you have a growing pile of golden agreement nuggets (I should totally trademark this), what is it good for? Did we gather it just to know it’s there?

Well, yes. At first, anyway. You’ve done the work to identify some of the ways you can stand together, and I’d say you can check off the box that you’ve answered the call to unite. You have come together with someone politically different than you. And you’ve done it while holding on to all of your principles. Even if nothing else happens, both of you have learned something by going through the process, and it feels right.

Soon, though, you’ll start to see other benefits. When he is talking with his like-minded friends about the crazy people on your side of the aisle, he’ll thoughtfully pause and tell them that actually you have a reasonable position, even if he doesn’t agree with you. Occasionally, you’ll do the same for him.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. You’ll be thinking about something political and get an idea—something the two of you could support. Join forces and do something. Not like Luke joining the Dark Side. But more like Thor and Loki. They are mostly enemies, but every couple of Marvel movies they find themselves working toward the same goal together. The foe didn’t see it coming. It’s beautiful.

We’re not talking about a compromise here, where you give something up to get something in return. What you’re doing is having your eyes open enough to see the things that you already agree on, recognizing that you might as well combine your efforts on that one thing and increase your chances of success. Imagine you want to go to Virginia and your neighbor is set on visiting North Carolina. Well, if you’re starting your road trip in California, your route is the same for most of the way. You might as well share the cost for the stretch that you can and then part ways when you must.

The first two steps are to think local and small. But when you find ways to connect with political rivals like this, big things can happen. Movements are born and coalitions are formed. Like an alloy of two metals, you can introduce solutions and policies that are solid. Solutions that outlast the back-and-forth of new administrations tearing down everything that was built by the last one. By reaching across the aisle and having the patience and nuance to tackle one small problem at a time, the big problems will begin to diminish.

Common ground was once our most valuable real estate. Today it’s becoming neglected, ignored, and overgrown. It’s time that We the People reclaim and restore it, and rediscover the surprising power we have when standing there.

It begins with two individuals who may not agree on all that much. And one of them is you.

We can do this during an election year. Or any year. Whether your candidate won or lost. This is the right way to unite.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Yes, It’s Time to Unite—But Not in the Way You Think appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Donald Trump has been many things, but he has never been the conservative that his supporters have claimed him to be.

The American people have never liked to hear harsh truths, but sometimes they need to be said. President Donald Trump is not a conservative. Trump is a reactionary. The left created Trump. The world is bigger than Donald Trump, but he has driven virtually everything in the world of politics since 2015. So, it makes sense to clarify just what happened in the past four years, and what it means for the future of American politics.

Trump Is No Conservative

The president may have some historically conservative traits, such as anti-war sentiments, lower taxes, and less executive overreach, but that does not mean he is conservative. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., New York) and  former Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) espouse at least two of those three principles—but they are liberals in the minds of average Americans.

It is almost entirely dependent on the Republican party for Trump to be described as conservative. What Trump really appears to be is a populist who plays as an anti-left candidate, despite the fact that Trump was a Democrat until 2012 after several party switches prior to that.

His inconsistent political history might explain why his original positions on several major issues have shifted. He plays to his crowd and fights his opponents. This could also explain his willingness to throw fiscal responsibility to the wind, his brash attacks of any person that opposes him, and his unwillingness to admit his recent defeat in the 2020 election.

Major hallmarks of American conservative thought are out the window with Trump’s politics, as well as the general proper manners of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Mitt Romney (R., Utah). It seems reckless and inaccurate to brand Trump as a legitimate conservative given his propensity to disregard customs and ideas to which conservative ideology has tied itself.

Trump Is a Reactionary

This adjective seems to best describe the Trump phenomena in American politics. Everything about Trump’s person and perception is supposed to be the exact opposite of a typical politician. One of the major tenets of his political career has been draining the swamp, which is typical of a populist movement that now feels forgotten.

Is it any wonder that rural voters, the working class, and other largely ignored political factions gravitated towards that message? People in Alabama certainly feel like they are the recipients of undeserved hate and neglect when they have lives and needs just as well. As if some of those elitists in D.C. will care about small town voters or the truly disenfranchised. In the minds of those who feel left behind, it’s better to flip the table than roll over.

Trump personified that feeling. For too long in the Republican Party, the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney did not fight for them. They may have campaigned as a better option, but the benefits never came. In the Democratic Party, it feels as if the coastal elites are laughing at those hicks that do not know their behind from a hole in the ground.

When things like this happen, it frankly does not matter to his supporters if Trump is wrong or engaging in bad behavior. They do not want to give any of these smug snobs the satisfaction of winning. People want to be heard—not tossed aside and ignored.

Trump Is a Product of the Left

As far as Trump’s Republican rise, he served as backlash to the left and their attacks on the Republican voter base. Not just political attacks, but malicious, personal attacks. These did not just come from low level staffers and political operatives on the left, but also from major political figures.

Former President Barack Obama comes to mind as he attacked a large segment of Americans by saying, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”. This is an ugly statement to say the least. This belief implies massive bigotry on behalf of many Americans who merely have different priorities, lives, and circumstances. Differing voting patterns, at least according to this belief, demarcated those who opposed the former president (then a candidate for the presidency in 2008) as hateful, racist, stupid, cultist, or some other derogatory label.

If the front runner and eventual president could get away with essentially taking a sucker punch at these people, why would they care what they got in a candidate as long as that candidate punched back? They were not given any sort of real respect with candidates such as the late senator John McCain, who was considered a class act and American hero. So how could they ever get that respect?

Although it gets lost in history, the Republican Party did try to run another, respectable, candidate—but he and his voters were castigated as people who wanted to put black people “back in chains” by then Vice President Joe Biden. That candidate was Senator Mitt Romney, who by all accounts is widely seen as a model of good character. Romney and his voters were cast as the racist slave owners of old with this comment. There was no moral legitimacy for them.

A similar theme occurred with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” comment and President-Elect Joe Biden’s “chumps” remark this year. It is a recurring theme that anyone who opposes the Democratic party’s candidate is routinely shellacked by major political figures on the left, and, ironically, they all preceded Trump as a president. Barack Obama’s comment even predated Donald Trump’s party switch in 2012.

What are supposedly morally bankrupt people supposed to do but lash out? They have no real representation, and they have no way to run a candidate who rises above the fray. The choice these people made was to fight back—and that choice was Donald Trump with his brash and vulgar persona.

In Conclusion…

As the past four years have gone by, Trump has dominated our airwaves and media, and some of that has been warranted. After all, he is only the most ‘powerful man in the world’. A large portion of the criticisms and attacks he receives are malicious and ill-founded, especially when it comes to his base. Not the diehard Trump supporters you see on social media or in the spotlight, but the people not seen or considered until an upcoming election.

This odd amalgamation of anti-corruption populism and pushback against the vindictive left created the political figure that is Donald Trump. He never really came from a defined ideology like conservatism. His political career was born out of reactionary sentiments driven by the arrogance of left-wing elites. Recognizing this, both sides should reevaluate their use of language, candidates, and philosophies to construct a healthy body politic where resentment and disdain do not drive our governance.

The post Opinion: Trump Has Never Been What Conservatives Wanted Him To Be appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.