The Middle Path To Understanding (And Addressing) The Racial Achievement Gap

The existence of a glaring achievement gap among different racial and ethnic groups within the United States is widely known. When we analyze rates of high school graduation, college attendance, unemployment, income, incarceration, obesity and out of wedlock births, we find that Asian-Americans enjoy the most positive outcomes, followed by European-Americans and then Hispanic-Americans with African- Americans demonstrating the most troublesome statistics. Where the greatest disagreement lies in on the explanation for this persistent phenomena. Progressive explanations typically center on the following factors of continued Institutional Racism and White Privilege. Whereas, conservative explanations usually discount racism, instead focusing on: cultural pathologies that encourage poor social and economic strategies.

The first glaring problem with the progressive explanation is that not only have Asian-Americans outperformed European-Americans in every social and economic measure, but so have African Immigrants. For example, 43.8% of African Immigrants are college graduates, which greatly exceeds the national average of 23.1%. If the "white power structure" and "institutional racism" are the deciding factors in educational and economic achievement, how is it possible that Indian, Japanese and Chinese immigrants have risen so quickly and are now doing better than whites? And interestingly this same phenomena is mirrored on an international level, with East Asian nations experiencing outstripping most European Nations in educational and even economic output. This clearly demonstrates the economic and social welfare are not static phenomena; throughout history, the fortunes of individuals, groups, nations and even regions have risen and fallen.

This phenomena become much clearer when we "look at the trees" rather than at the "forest, i.e. focus on specific, individual values, behaviors and choices that increase or decrease an individual's chance for improving their economic and social trajectory. The reason I chose to focus on trajectory, is because comparing the absolute outcome of (let's say) the child of a working class immigrant to a well established, middle class family would neither be fair nor allow us to fully determine the effect of culture and choice. But, comparing the relative improvement or decline of each individual or group would allow us to do so. And exploring the multi-generation trajectory of families and groups paints an even clearer pictures of the dynamics that government social and economic assent and decline. 

Or, to be even more specific, we could ask ourselves what advise would we give to a friend or family member about how to improve their chances for success? Here are the most obvious: dedicate more time to studying, at all costs do not drop out of high school, do not have a child before you graduate, do not have a child until you are married and financially stable, avoid engaging in behaviors that run the risk of arrest,  if possible choose a highly marketable field of study, such as math, science and engineering, live beneath your means, establish a good credit history, save and invest in the future. While making the right choices are not absolute determinants of one's trajectory, no one can deny that there exists a very strong correlation between choices, behaviors and outcomes. When we "compare apples to apples," or the more upwardly mobile to  the less upwardly mobile components of the African-American community, we will certainly encounter markedly different approaches to family, education, employment, saving and investment strategies. And unless we are hopelessly intellectually dishonest, we will see that the same is true for more (and less) upwardly mobile ethnic groups. To put it simply, Indians and African Immigrants have risen so quickly, because a higher percentage of their respective groups adopted values, choices and strategies that are conducive to success and African-Americans and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic and European-Americans have not. 

There is a balanced middle path that does not look at issues of social pathology as an either / or phenomena; they acknowledge the continued effects of racism, but believe that they are greatly amplified by the prevailing culture, values and behaviors of individuals and communities alike. In this day and age, such choices have a far greater bearing on the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities than racism and white privilege. For example, many African-American communities are provided by substandard schools, whose negative effects are amplified by the insufficient commitment to learning and discipline present in many families. But, those who take the middle way differ from most conservatives by their acknowledgement that culture and behavior do not occur in a vacuum; they are products of one's history and experience. In other words, the most pernicious aspect of America's long history of racist oppression is that it degraded the social and cultural capital of its victims, leaving them in a state in which they cannot fully capitalize on the rapidly expanding opportunities of a free society.

Decimate a  people's common culture, outlaw education for 5 generations and provide shamefully substandard schooling for 3 more and it will not come as a surprise that a substantial portion of the next generations will be left without a tradition of learning. Subject several generations to slavery and bar their descendants from all but the most menial professions and do not be surprised if the next generations do not see the connection of work and discipline to upward mobility. And then finally when you acknowledge the magnitude of the crime you committed against a whole people, you seek to make amends by the massive expansion of the welfare state that renders a portion of the beleaguered community dependent on the state, with their traditional family structure eviscerated. Part of this tragic drama are the "experts" and "activists" who treat the battered community like children and passive agents who are incapable of shaping their environment and their destinies, like other communities have done so before them. Their refusal to assign any responsibility to diverse communities for the problems that they face may stem from a well meaning prohibition against "blaming the victim," but it has eroded their capacity to acknowledge and address the pathological behaviors and cultural patterns that play a major role in shaping disparate outcomes.

The view of the Middle Way begs the questions: What can be done? If personal choice and culture are driving forces in the trajectory of individuals, communities and cultures, can the state do anything to induce real, positive change? Relatively to progressives, who have deep faith in the power of the state to shape equal outcomes, classical liberals (libertarians) believe that at best the state can expand equal opportunity. The problem is not that universities are discriminating against diverse groups, quite to the contrary, most are religiously pursuing "diversity" and "equal outcomes." Rather, the dearth of qualified high school graduates means that far too diverse students are able to capitalize on these unprecedented opportunities. So, improving the dismal schools that diverse communities face is of paramount importance. Without real improvement in educational outcomes, progress will remain elusive and economic inequality will continue to worsen.

How schools can be improved is truly a vexing question, because more than a half century of efforts by the educational establishment to bridge achievement gaps have bore little fruit. Rather than repeat the tried and failed formula of: increased funding, increased federalization and the pursuit of unproven pedagogic fads, a new paradigm must approached: school choice and competition. Unlike most of my conservative brethren, I make no illusions that the said factors can improve failing schools, but at the very least they can offer expanded opportunity for the students who are willing and able to pursue them. And on an even broader level, the education establishment must shift its focus from the study of failure, towards understanding and promoting the norms, values, behaviors and strategies that upwardly groups (Asian-Americans) and nations have pursued. As painful as it may be to admit, not only do schools shape their students, but students and their families have a central role in determining the quality of the schools. So, without a shift in the values, norms and behaviors that predominate in a community, even the most well run schools will still produce dismal results.

This brings us to the topic of welfare. As a classical liberal (libertarian) I would like to see welfare in its present form significantly reduced. However, until we arrive at that improbable point, the best we can hope for is to reform welfare programs so that they will subsidize positive, rather than pathological choices. Increasing subsidies for welfare recipients who choose to not have more children (than they can afford and educate) may constitute excessive social engineering for most conservatives, but would ultimately offer a net decrease in expenditures and provide incentives for positive behavioral changes. In addition, the incentive structure that governs social welfare agencies needs to be transformed; social workers and bureaucrats who are able to help their clients transition away from dependency and pathology should be offered bonuses. Mandating full time employment, even "menial jobs" that "Americans won't do" for all adults in a household that receive welfare is essential for breaking the cycle of dependency and re-establishing a culture of work.

Ultimately what characterizes the middle way is intellectual honesty, a belief that we must allow facts and reason to carry us to logical conclusions, now matter how uncomfortable they make us, no matter how offensive others find them. For using sophistry to support comfortable narratives will spare feelings, but will lead us to continue pursuing the ineffective paths and policies of the last half century. The first step towards real compassion is adopting the intellectually honesty acknowledgement that past racism casts its heavy shadow on the present via the persistence of widespread cultural and behavioral pathology. Failure to do so will doom future generations to even greater economic and social inequality; a more racist outcome I cannot imagine.

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism

Pictured Above: The Great Martin Luther King JR.

As someone who detests the evils of racism and sexism, I very much looked forward to taking a pedagogy class which included an anti-bias curriculum. But, early on in the class I discovered that the curriculum was heavily ideological and used as a platform to promote other political and cultural agendas. Present in this vision was the belief that the American Way was innately racist and oppressive. The driving vision of this class was a multicultural ideology that indirectly encouraged teachers to view their students as members of groups, rather than unique individuals.Among the agendas that it promoted was a curricular transformation that encouraged teachers to de-emphasize "eurocentric literature" with a "white male perspective." While these view points are worthy of debate, one need not adopt them in order to live a life free of prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the strong vein of Cultural Marxism present in anti-bias curricula has done much to dissuade well meaning Americans from embracing its otherwise reasonable message.

Perhaps what I find most troubling about some university level anti-racist programs is their invasive focus on addressing "incorrect" private thoughts, attitudes and ideologies, rather than concrete behaviors. The University of Delaware's  resident life program  even bore resemble to a Maoist era struggle session, in which participants had to confess and atone for their prohibited thoughts. New students faced one-on-one interviews, in which they were questioned by their Resident Assistants (RA) on their views on race, gender, sexuality and the environment. The secession included deeply invasive questions like "when did you discover your sexual identity" and "race?" If the purpose of these invasive sessions were to facilitate open debate and exploration, perhaps they might have been acceptable, but their stated goals were for students to accept preordained conclusions like "systemic oppression exists in our society" and to "recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." Even more troubling was the fact that RAs wrote up and delivered reports to their superiors, with one student even being written up for stating that she was "tired of having diversity shoved down her throat." 

An approach to anti-bias and anti-racism that is more effective with and attractive to Americans is one that invokes the spirit of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), which affirms the importance of individual (economic and social) liberty and rule of law. A key component in the success of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was his ability to present racism as a failure to realize the American Way; for what can be more Anti-American than preventing others from enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The engine for progress in the treatment of African-Americans has not been radical efforts to reject or redefine the Great American Vision, but to fully realize it, so that all Americans can enjoy its spiritual and material fruits. And without invoking multiculturalism and other divisive ideologies, we can and should call upon our fellow Americans to reject racist behavior as an affront to civility, fairness and individualism. 

While the constitution protects individual liberty from state and private oppression, it also guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of expression, even for those who hold racist and "incorrect" beliefs. Accordingly, most classical liberals (libertarians) are not so focused on the beliefs that one may hold about groups, but in the manner in which they behave towards individuals. For example, I am not so concerned about the "improper" beliefs that some of my clients hold about my group (Jews), because they fairly treat me as an individual. How is this possible, you may ask? An observant and intellectually honest person can recognize trends that they may or may not like about any given group, while still affirming the uniqueness of each individual and treating them accordingly. When I posed this very question to a client of mine who engages in racist rants against virtually every group, yet has employed and even befriended: African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Polish and Jewish individuals, his response was "I may be racist, but I am not Stupid!!!" This seemingly paradoxical view highlights the fact that participation in a competitive free market is a far more effective antidote to racist behavior than hours of indoctrination at the University of Delaware. 

I will close this post with a thoughtful speech by Dr. Ron Paul that elaborates on the hazards that even well meaning collectivist campaigns against racism hold and reaffirms the surest protection being an affirmation of individual liberty:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

  

Brief Thoughts on Human Nature & Political Philosophy

While I share the progressive dislike of former president GW Bush, I disagree with the source of their sentiments. Their concerns were not that Mr. Bush so expanded the size of the state, but rather he was the "wrong helmsman." Most hoped for a leader who could utilize the largess of the federal government to promote social and economic transformation, whereas I as a conservative am skeptical of the "ship itself." This brings us to an underlying difference in the ways in which liberal and conservative thought tends to view man. Historically, liberals like Jean-Jacques Rousseau have viewed man either as a tabula rasa, a blank slate shaped by socialization or being born good, but corrupted by society. Conservatives have tended to believe more in a set human nature with innate vices. For this reason, liberals have been more inclined to support a powerful state that pursues the "perfection of mankind" or in the case of Che Guevara, the creation of a "new man". And conservatives have sought to limit the folly unleashed when flawed men with power seek to perfect the social and economic lives of other flawed men and communities. The great conservative commentator Jack Hunter artfully expresses these sentiments in this brief piece, in which he reserves his harshest criticism for neoconservatives who he refers to as:

 "...a collection of trigger happy John Lennons who continue to imagine a middle east that will happily embrace American values at the point of the gun, that in Iraq and now Afghanistan the scenario has yet to play out hasn't seem to deter the right wing utopians that continue to champion it."
 Here are some other excerpts that most caught my attention:

"Grandiose liberal efforts do not work not because they are simply led by the wrong kind of men, because they are lead by men period."

"Multiculturalism is well intentioned, yet is seems ever time different cultures cohabit it creates more friction than friendship."

"I've been uncomfortable with the term conservative for some of the reasons that I've already mentioned, also because so many big government Republican hacks have so damaged the term...after all GW Bush called himself a conservative, yet no other popular label better describes my philosophy, I believe in limited government primarily because I do not want other flawed men who inevitably create so many flawed systems, programs and bureaucratic schemes to have that much power over me...I am screwed up enough as it is."

Liberals seem to believe that man is inherently good and the larger the collective effort, the quicker humans can evolve tending ever closer to earthly perfection. I believe that individuals can be and many are good people despite man's overall flawed nature which does not evolve and can never be perfected on this earth. Some might find this pessimistic view of humanity depressing, but its actually quite liberating. Those who keep wondering when we will eradicate racism, sexism and religious strife often drive themselves bonkers with their futile efforts. The only way to truly due away with such problems is to eradicate man altogether as ethnic attachments, differences between the sexes and even yearning for G-d are significant constant aspects of the human experience. and that we often become jealous or nasty about such differences is also unfortunately part of our makeup."

"Conservatism recognizes man's flaws and seek to do the best with the reality at hand. Liberalism tries in vain to create its own reality and ideal, never taking into account the flawed nature of the material that it seeks to work with."

"That the ridiculously large government that we suffer under today had to  circumvent our nation's founding document at every turn to become so powerful is no accident...And seeking a return to constitutional government is much more than some cheap conservative catch phrase. Though it might seem contradictory, being a conservative in America necessarily means being a radical, because any serious attempt to actually stuff our modern federal government back into its constitutional box, a colossal unprecedented reversal of more than a century and a half of government expansion would be nothing short of a revolution."

"Will this ever happen, perhaps not, perhaps I am being utopian thinking that a return to constitutional government is even possible. Yet as liberals continue to argue that the solution to our problems is to place even more power into even fewer men, I will continue to argue for fewer laws restrained powers and smaller government, so when men do their inevitable worse we can at least minimize the damage."

A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance?

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader: A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance?

By RonPaul.com

January 20, 2011

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader joined Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch to discuss the possibility of fighting the establishment through a libertarian-progressive alliance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc

Transcript



Judge Napolitano [host of Fox Business “Freedom Watch”]: Tonight on Freedom Watch, a very special event: Libertarian and Tea Party hero, Ron Paul, and icon of the Left, Ralph Nader. Think they couldn’t disagree? Think again! Congressman Paul, Mr. Nader are with us now in a rare interview. Congressman Paul is the author of End the Fed. Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us. Gentlemen, welcome to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Ralph Nader: Thank you.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, to you first. You have recently said that Congressman Paul and the Tea Party Republicans are different than the other Republicans in the Congress. What do you mean by that?

Ralph Nader: To the extent that they are genuine libertarian conservatives and not corporatists—corporatists believe in corporate government—they are great allies with many liberals and progressives to challenge the bloated, wasteful military budget, to challenge undeclared wars overseas, to challenge hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, to challenge the invasiveness of our civil liberties and civil rights by the notorious PATRIOT Act, to challenge the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization Agreements—and also, too, the first victory will be a powerful whistleblower bill, that libertarian conservatives and liberals and progressives in the Congress almost got through last year, to let government employees ethically blow the whistle on corporate rapaciousness and contracts and government misdeeds. Just think of that agenda for a dynamic political force!

Judge Napolitano: All right, Ralph, you have given enough topics there for us to talk to for two hours. We only have about ten minutes. And you’re both friends of mine, and we both have chatted about these issues. But Congressman Paul, almost everything that Ralph Nader just said, you could have said. And you have said. Is this a coalition of the leading libertarian in the Congress and one of the leading progressives in American culture today?

Ron Paul: Well, I believe in coaltions. You know, they always talk about “We need more bipartisanship.” And I say we have too much bipartisanship, because the bipartisanship here in Washington endorses corporatism, which Ralph and I disapprove of. But, you know, coalitions are different. Ralph and I do have some disagreements. But that list he just made, I agree with him on that. So I think we should come together and work together, and I think we can. Matter of fact, we had a little project during the last campaign where I got progressives and libertarians and conservatives together, and we actually had an agreement that we shouldn’t be having deficit financing. We didn’t agree on where to spend and who to tax and all-not. But we had an agreement that these runaway deficits are horrible for us. And of course, we even mentioned the Fed and we got in agreement. So I think there’s a lot of room for progressives and libertarian conservatives to work together on it.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, Congressman Paul, of course, has been the leading member of Congress on auditing the Fed and on ending the Fed. You probably support him on both of those, don’t you?

Ralph Nader: Well, the Fed is completely out of control! It’s not under any legal controls that Congress can really enforce. I mean, look at the bailouts over the weekend, last year—a year and a half, little over a year ago—on Citigroup, $350 billion bailout in secret. The banks fund the Fed. It doesn’t go through the congressional appropriations process, as it should under our Constitution. It needs an audit. And I think Congressman Paul is teaming up with hyper-progressive Senator Sanders to bring the Fed into openness and greater accountability. So that’s another political dynamic that can increase in force and power in Congress.

Judge Napolitano: All right, Congressman Paul, the last time we talked about—since the last time we talked about this—there’s been a change. And that is, the new Congress has come in. The Republicans are numerically superior in the House, and as a result of this, you are chair of a subcomittee of the House, one of whose jobs is to monitor the Fed. Question: Will you succeed in serving subpoenas on Ben Bernanke, to show up and have a chat with you, under oath, and to bring his ledger sheets with him? And will comply with those subpoenas? And if he does do that, can Ralph Nader sit in the front row?

Ron Paul: Well I’ll tell you what. I’ve been doing some checking, and I’ve been informed that the Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the Secretary of Treasury and officials in the Cabinet go to the full committee, so I will not have that authority. But I may be able to do somebody that is not the full chairman of the committee, but if he does, it will have to come from the chairman of the committee. But that doesn’t mean that we’ll go lightly on digging up for this information, because Ralph is absolutely right on this thing. Actually, the Federal Reserve can have a bigger budget than the Congress. I mean, they can spend three, four trillion dollars in a year, and then they don’t want to tell us. Now, one thing, I did get a gentleman’s agreement with, on many members on the Banking Committee already, is, I made a suggestion. I said, “Why don’t we ask the Fed what they’re going to do? If they’re going to spend a certain amount of money, get approval from the Congress. If they plan to give $10 billion out, why should they do that without Congressional approval? It’s totally out of control. It was never meant to be. And it was never the Founders’ intention to have the system that we have today.

Judge Napolitano: All right, last question on the Fed, and then I want to change the subject. Ralph, would you support—would progressives support—a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Stated differently: Literally, legally, ending the Fed?

Ralph Nader: Well, I can’t speak for all of them. But clearly, in my judgment, the Fed should be a—whatever it does—should be a Cabinet-level accountable institution. Right now, it’s a private bank government inside the federal government, funded by fees from the banks and thumbing its nose at Congress! But its worst nightmare is Congressman Ron Paul, who now is head of the subcommittee overseeing the Fed. Watch for the fireworks!

Judge Napolitano: All right. Let’s switch gears and talk about fireworks. Congressman Paul, if we ended our military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, could that not provide us the substantial and deep budget cuts that we need to prevent further borrowing, and perhaps to spend less than we actually take in in tax dollars?

Ron Paul: Absolutely. And I think it’s the easiest place to cut. I mean, we as Libertarians might not approve of some of these medical programs. But is that the place to start? Or should it be overseas spending, and should we have a stronger national defense by bringing our troops home? And I say that is the place to go. We should cut from overseas, and bring the troops home. And I think the world would be more at peace. I was complaining today—they had questions about China. I said, “They’re getting to be good capitalists. They work hard, they save money, and they buy up resources. What do we do? We send our troops out and say, ‘We’re protecting our oil in the Middle East,’ and we’re draining our resources. That does contribute significantly to the bankruptcy. All wars are fought with inflation, destruction of the money, which is the reason we have unemployment today.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, I know—

Ralph Nader: Just to punctuate—

Judge Napolitano: I know how you feel about the wars, Ralphh. I want to switch gears a little bit—

Ralph Nader: Just to punctuate: $30 million an hour! 24 hours a day, we’re spending on those two wars. $30 million an hour!

Judge Napolitano: Ralph… Wikileaks. Is it a good thing, for mature people, in a mature democracy, to know what their government is up to, let the chips fall where they may?

Ralph Nader: Of course! Information is the currency of democracy. Without information, you don’t what the government is doing, you don’t know how to check it, you don’t know how to improve it. And, as Congressman Ron Paul said memorably a few days ago, the Bush-Cheney administration lied their way to the Iraq War, and lying is covering up the truth, and lying is secrecy. And the same is true for millions of Americans being, been subjected to surveillance, in violation of Federal law, which is a five-year felony. So, you know, here they’re worried about Wikileaks, when we’ve gotten into war because of secrecy and cover-ups, illegal wars, and we are putting Americans under unconstitutional surveillance?

Judge Napolitano: Got it. All right. You two have been agreeing on a lot. Now, the hot topic of the day, on which, I suspect, you disagree—well, maybe I can find some common ground. I think you are both in favor of repealing the Health Care Law: Congressman Paul, because he wants the free market to address healthcare; Mr. Nader, because he wants universal healthcare, paid for by the government, which this legislation doesn’t accomplish. Ralph, to you first: Healthcare. If you were in the Congress today, would you vote to repeal it?

Ralph Nader: Yes. In favor of single-payer. Full Medicare for all, with free choice of doctor and hospital, by everybody—everybody in, nobody out. The insurance companies have defaulted. They’ve demonstrated they cannot be trusted in terms of establishing a “pay-or-die,” or “pay-or-get-sick” system, which is costing 45,000 American lives a year who cannot get insurance to get diagnosed and treated. But there’s a better—

Naplolitano: Okay. Congressman Paul, I suspect you don’t agree with anything Ralph just said. You have the last word.

Ron Paul: Well, we both oppose the corporatism that’s involved in medicine, and that’s one thing we agree on. But no, I disagree with the delivery of healthcare by the government. Any time the government delivers a service, the cost goes up and the quality goes down—and whether it’s education or whether it’s medical care. So I want medical care delivered more like cellphones and TVs and computers. Because there, there’s the least amount of regulation, the prices keep dropping, and poor people end up with TVs and cellphones. That’s what would happen with services, too, and would maintain the services.

Judge Napolitano: Congressman Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, thank you for joining us on Freedom Watch.

Ralph Nader: It’s public funding and private delivery, is what “single-payer” is.

Judge Napolitano: Got it, Ralph. Got it. Coming up, a man who refused to let the President take away his GM car dealship—

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-20/ron-paul-and-ralph-nader-a-libertarian-progressive-alliance/

Progressive & Libertarian Common Ground

To the best of my knowledge, historical records do not indicate if Washington and Jefferson smoked marijuana, but we do know that they grew hemp. And the encroachment of the federal government in the private lives of its citizenry via the war on drugs would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers, something that most Democrats & Republicans seem to overlook.

A shared belief in the importance of legalizing marijuana is held by most progressives and libertarians. Most of my progressive friends see the value of social freedom, but many fail to see that economic freedom and limited government are also indispensable aspects of personal liberty and prosperity. To them I recommend that they light up a spliff and spend the night reading the works of: Jefferson, Franklin, Tocqueville, Hayek, Mises and Milton Friedman.

The Growing Rift Between Libertarians & Republicans

I came across a very interesting article in (of all places) the "Progressive Nation" which discusses the growing split between libertarians and the core of the Republic Party. Obama poses a tremendous dilemma for libertarian minded individuals, like myself: on one hand we dislike many aspects of the Republican Party on the other hand our mutual concerns about Obama's economic policies are forcing us into an unhappy and (hopefully) temporary marriage.

Most libertarians have not forgotten that GW Bush set us on the path to fiscal insolvency, corporate cronyism and warfare with no end in sight; Obama has merely accelerated our journey in that direction. The only hope I have is that changes in public sentiment will force Republicans to go beyond empty rhetoric and actually implement true conservative policies.

This brings us to several other dilemmas: Should libertarian minded individuals (like Ron Paul) seek to improve the party from within or break off and form another party? If they break off will they siphon off conservative votes and allow even worse candidates to win and (ultimately) push the country towards even even worse policies?

To view the full article, scroll to the bottom and click on the link:

The Growing Rift Between Libertarians and Republicans

October 28th, 2009

Although a temporary truce between Libertarians and Republicans has been in effect for the Tea Parties, divisions over legalizing marijuana, domestic espionage, abortion, torture, gay marriage, the separation of church/state, immigration, and de-militarization are starting to take a toll. The schism between Libertarians and Republicans is widening.

Although the Libertarian philosophy has been around since the late-Enlightenment period, the party was established in the US in 1971. The Republican Party was established in 1854, and originally “put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States” before increasingly becoming the home of conservatives.

There have been periodic alliances between Libertarians and Republicans in the past, although the last few years have demonstrated increasing distrust between the two.

2008 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Roots of the rift between Libertarians and Republicans can be traced to many of the policies pushed through Congress during the George W Bush presidency, in particular the invasion of Iraq, spying on Americans, and the burgeoning yearly deficits. The libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) gained enthusiastic online and grassroots support seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for president. Despite this, libertarian ideals did not play well with the conservative GOP base, and as a consequence, he was greeted with numerous boos and not even invited to the debate sponsored by Fox ‘News’.

TEA PARTIES

The first Tea Parties were libertarian events for Ron Paul, starting with the ‘money bomb’ during the Republican primary in December 2007. A few speaking events and a ceremonial dumping of barrels into Boston Harbor followed in 2008. These early Tea Parties were generally smaller events based on the libertarian platform.

Instead of small events, up to 300,000 showed up in multiple gatherings around the country. The focus was kept exclusively on economic issues: taxation, deficits, the economic stimulus package, and the national debt. This is an area where there is supposed to be common ground between Libertarians and Republicans, although the latter only pays lip service to it as explained later.

This was the moment when the Tea Parties ceased being Libertarian events, and turned into Republican ones. Despite finding some common ground ideologically on economic issues, from this point forward the party platform of the Libertarians would take a back seat to Republican and corporate plans.

DIFFERENCES ON ISSUES

The issues that divide Libertarians and Republicans are numerous and intense. Although the outward similarity on fiscal policy has bound them together temporarily, these topics are increasingly becoming points of contention between them.

Legalizing Marijuana

Responsible Fiscal Policy

Domestic espionage (Patriot Act and FISA)

Abortion Rights

Torture, Rendition, Capital Punishment

Opposing corporate welfare

Get the government out of marriage

Separation of Church and State

Immigration

De-Militarization

Libertarians believe in the full legalization of marijuana and other drugs. Republicans have been pushing the failed ‘War on Drugs’ since Reagan. This irrational prohibition on a plant and the surrounding hysteria behind it has been behind the largest increase in the incarceration rate in the world. The United States is now the world’s leading jailer, with 1 in 32 Americans either behind bars or on probation, mostly due to marijuana arrests (approaching 1 million per year).

Libertarians believe in a deficit neutral economic policy. The Republicans have given lip service to this, while actually employing the Starve the Beast policy where deficits are deliberately run sky high. Recent GOP administrations are responsible for 82% of the national debt, including the majority of the deficit for fiscal 2009 (Bush budget, Great Recession, etc.).

Libertarians believe in repealing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Patriot Act to finally end domestic espionage. Republicans believe that surveillance of American citizens is an integral part of keeping the country safe.

Libertarians believe the government should be kept out of the abortion issue. Republicans continue to pander to their religious right base in pushing for more government laws to end a woman’s right to chose.

Libertarians believe in ending torture, rendition, and capital punishment. Republicans are big supporters of all three.

Libertarians believe in ending corporate welfare. Republicans have traditionally advocated supporting many big industries, such as defense contractors and Big Oil.

Libertarians believe in getting the government out of marriage, which would effectively give LGBT couples the same rights as straight folks. Republicans support the continued government mandated discrimination against gays being able to marry.

Libertarians believe in the separation of church and state. Republicans continue to support religious ceremonies in school functions, government buildings, endorsement of Christianity on legal tender, the courts, and elsewhere. In fact, it is one of the wedge issues that they use most often.

Libertarians believe in an open border policy on immigration. Republicans continue to demonize undocumented immigrants seeking a better life in the US.

Libertarians believe in a small, lean, and defensive Department of Defense. Republicans favor more military, bigger budgets, and more interventionism abroad. The US currently has over 400,000 troops stationed in 144 countries around the globe. The official cost of this has soared to almost $500 billion per year although the hidden costs easily double this. The US actually spends as much as the rest of the world combined on military expenditures, hardly a sound fiscal policy. Any talk of bringing our troops home and ending foreign wars results in Republican accusations of surrender.

LIKELY TRAJECTORY OF EVENTS

The Tea Parties have been the glue that binds the two groups together so far. The think tanks behind the themes of these events have been very careful to keep the focus on economic issues, although as time passes, more conservative social and foreign policy issues are being brought to the forefront. Libertarians who dare carry signs advocating a withdrawal from Iraq, ending the drug war, or allowing gay marriage will suffer the same fate as Ron Paul during the primary debates: an angry wall of intolerance and open hostility, just like this peaceful counter-protester who dared to carry a Public Option Now sign to Glenn Beck’s 912 DC rally.

To add to this, the Republicans are going to have an increasingly difficult time with cohesion as non-economic issues are brought to the forefront. The upcoming battles over the Employee Free Choice Act and Campaign Finance Reform are not likely to cause a rebellion by Libertarians, although Immigration Reform, the closure of the torture facility at Guantanamo, and equal rights for LGBT folks certainly will. There will simply be no way for this temporary truce to last in the wake of issues such as this.

One of the main curiosities of this situation is whether the Libertarians will do as they have done before, become disenfranchised with the political system, and accept a minor 3rd party status, or whether they will stand their ground and try to create a larger movement.

There are many non-partisan community organizers in the Tea Party movement who are actively trying to stop the slide into Republican control. This is apparent in the recent division between the Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express as reported by the Rachel Maddow.


What this boils down to is ‘Our Country Deserves Better’, the Republican political action committee (PAC) being behind the Tea Party Express bus tour.To make matters worse, Fox ‘News’ appears to have chosen a side, not surprisingly with the Republican Tea Party Express. The Tea Party Patriots are not happy and ejected Amy Kremer, the Atlanta activist who co-founded the organization, after she jumped onboard the Express.

There is more. In September, Florida Republicans purged Libertarians from the GOP. According to the Daily Paul:

“On Friday — timed just right to minimize news coverage — Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer and the state party Grievance Committee notified a number of party members, many of them holding elective office, that they were effectively purged from the party and had been removed from their offices and would be ineligible to hold any other party positions for periods ranging from two to four years. The targets of this purge are mostly members of the Florida chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus”

As a matter of political philosophy and organization, the cracks in the foundation are spreading. From differences in core beliefs to resentment over the Tea Party movement being hijacked, the rift between Libertarians and Republicans is growing.

http://progressivenation.us/2009/10/28/the-growing-rift-between-libertarians-and-republicans/

Achieving Balance (Through Libertarians)

When I voice my support for Ron Paul or any libertarian oriented candidate, the usual response is "how can you support someone who wants to legalize crack and eliminate the minimum wage...do you support those positions?!?"

Although I do not see eye to eye with Dr. Paul on these issues, I find the reservations of these individuals to be unreasonable. They presuppose that Dr. Paul or any libertarian would be able to push through their entire platform to its extreme, in the context of a legislative, judicial and (presumably) an executive branch that would resist many of its tenants.

In a system that (for good and for bad) centers around compromise, a libertarian's more "radical" and "distasteful" positions and policies would be defeated and (if their power were sufficient) positive compromises would emerge.

For example, they would never be able to legalize crack, but they may be able to push through the decriminalization of marijuana and a transition to a more humane system that treats drug addiction as a medical and psychological issue, rather than a criminal one.

This principle applies to a host of issues. For example, they would never be able to eliminate the welfare state. but they may be able to push it in a direction that limits the pathological, long term dependency of many of its users.

While they would not be able to eliminate America's overseas military presence, they may be able to revive the founding father's reservations about needlessly getting involved in the conflicts of other nations.

And while they would never garnish sufficient public support to eliminate all state intervention in the economy, they hopefully could end the more egregious examples, like agricultural subsidies that go primarily towards large agro-corporations, including tobacco growers.

In other words, they may be able to push the economic and political system towards greater balance and equilibrium. In this case they may be able to help move us away from dangerous growth in the size and scope of the state that has led to: spiralling national debt, fundamental market distortions, endless warfare and a growing disregard for individual liberty.

Progressives & Libertarians: Eye to Eye

Although their philosophical foundations are dramatically different, there are a surprising number of issues that progressives and libertarians see eye to eye on. Whereas the majority of Democrats and Republicans have implicitely supported America's increased military presence across the globe, most progressives and libertarians are aghast at America's transition into an empire. The founding fathers wisely admonished the United States to not get embroiled in the military and political conflicts of other nations, sentiments that both of the said groups share. While not everyone is as isolationst as Dr. Ron Paul, that Iraq and Afghanistan have became black holes swallowing up countless lives and billions of dollars with few benefits. Yet, we continue our expansionist policies, as seen by America's increasing military presence in Pakistan, Yemen and even Colombia. I am hoping that progressives and libertarians can join together to oppose this expansion, because very few Republican and Democrats are willing to do so.

Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors

By SIMON ROMERO

Published: July 22, 2009

CARACAS, Venezuela — A plan to increase the American military presence on at least three military bases in Colombia, Washington’s top ally in Latin America, is accentuating Colombia’s already tense relations with some of its neighbors.

Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua, which are members of a leftist political alliance that is led by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and backed by his nation’s oil revenues, have all criticized the plan, saying it would broaden the military reach of the United States in the Andes and the Caribbean at a time when they are still wary of American influence in the region.

Despite a slight improvement in Venezuela’s relations with the United States in recent months, Mr. Chávez has been especially vocal in lashing out at the plan. Speaking on state television here on Monday night, he put Venezuela’s diplomatic ties with Colombia under review, calling the plan a platform for “new aggression against us.”

Colombia’s foreign minister, Jaime Bermúdez, on Tuesday defended the negotiations, which are expected to produce an agreement in August, asking neighboring countries not to interfere in Colombia’s affairs. “We never expressed our opinion in what our neighbors do,” he said, pointing to Mr. Chávez’s attempts to strengthen ties with non-Western nations. “Not even when the Russian presence became known in Venezuelan waters, or with relations with China,” he added.

The United States has been negotiating the increase of military operations in Colombia in recent weeks, faced with Ecuador’s decision to end a decade-long agreement allowing E-3 AWACs and P-3 Orion surveillance planes to operate from the Manta Air Base on Ecuador’s Pacific Coast.

While American antidrug surveillance flights would sharply increase in Colombia, the world’s top producer of cocaine, the agreement would not allow American personnel to take part in combat operations in the country, which is mired in a four-decade war against guerrillas. A limit of 800 American military personnel and 600 American military contractors would also remain in place, officials involved in the talks said.

Still, depending on how the accord is put in place, American troop levels in Colombia could climb sharply. The United States currently has about 250 military personnel in the country, deployed largely in an advisory capacity to Colombia’s armed forces, William Brownfield, the United States ambassador to Colombia, said last week.

Colombia, which has already received more than $5 billion in military and antidrug aid from the United States this decade, has found itself isolated diplomatically as Mr. Chávez presses ahead with his efforts to expand Venezuela’s oil diplomacy while eroding American influence in the hemisphere.




Other countries chafe at Colombia for different reasons. Colombia’s diplomatic relations with Ecuador have soured since Colombian forces carried out a raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, rebel camp on Ecuadoran territory last year. A festering boundary dispute with Nicaragua has also made for tensions between Colombia and Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, an ally of Mr. Chávez.

But with Venezuela itself, Colombia remains locked in a complex game of interdependence.

Its sales of manufactured and agricultural goods to Venezuela remain resilient despite Mr.Chávez’s occasional outbursts directed at his ideological opposite, Colombia’s president, Álvaro Uribe. And faced with disarray in its oil industry, Venezuela relies on imports of Colombian natural gas, narrowing the possibility of a severe deterioration in ties between the two countries despite their sharply different views of cooperation with the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/americas/23colombia.html

John Stossel - Always Original

John Stossel is a true free thinker who does not fall prey to conventional thinking. Love him or hate him, he's always original. To view the full article, click on the link at the end of the post.

Hating Free Enterprise

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

by John Stossel

Why is selling an organ "radical"? Banning the sale of kidneys kills thousands of people a year. That should be considered "radical."

Today, 74,000 Americans wait for kidney transplants while enduring painful, exhausting and expensive hours hooked up to dialysis machines. The machines are technological miracles that keep many alive, but dialysis is not nearly as good as a real kidney. Every day, about 17 Americans die while waiting for a transplant.

Yet plenty of Americans would give up a kidney if they could just be paid for their trouble and risk. Ruth Sparrow of St. Petersburg, Fla., ran a newspaper ad saying: "Kidney, runs good, $30,000 or best offer." She told "20/20" that she got a couple of serious calls, but then the newspaper refused to run her ad again, warning her that she might be arrested.

Why isn't someone with two healthy organs allowed to put one on the market? Because in 1984, U.S. Rep. Al Gore sponsored a law making the sale of organs punishable by five years in jail. Congress couldn't contain its enthusiasm; the bill passed 396 to 6.

So giving someone a kidney is a good deed, but selling the same kidney is a felony.

When I confronted Dr. Brian Pereira of the National Kidney Foundation about that, he said, "The current system functions extremely well." I asked him how the system could be working "extremely well" when 17 people die every day because they can't get kidneys. He said that the "desperate (situation) doesn't justify an unwise policy decision."

The Kidney Foundation fears that poor people would be "exploited." But what gives the foundation the right to decide for poor people? The poor are as capable as others of deciding what trade-offs to make in life. No one forces them to give up an organ. To say the poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing.

But gatekeepers like Dr. Pereira say there should be "no barter, no sale of organs. That's where we have to step in." When I asked him who that "we" is that has the right to "step in," he replied, "The government (and) the professional societies."

That conceit -- that the government and "professional societies" must decide for all of us, and the underlying hostility toward commerce -- kills people.

Money shouldn't make giving up an organ suspect. As one kidney patient told me before he died, "The doctors make money, the hospitals make money, the organ procurement organizations make money. Everybody gets something except for the donor!"

If you think it's immoral to sell an organ, don't do it. But sick people shouldn't have to die because some people despise markets.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/16/hating_free_enterprise?page=full&comments=true

Common Ground Between Progressives & Conservatives: Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul (R - Texas)

Even though my "progressive" surely disagree with many of Ron Paul's points, I hope that they can find common ground with Dr. Paul's criticism of our grossly irresponsible fiscal and foreign policy. As a staunch supporter of free market economics, Dr. Paul is vehemently opposed to subsidies and selective treatment of connected corporations, which "progressives" usually refer to as "corporate welfare." Although the reasoning of both sides may be different, there are points where they can work together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRvnXtrmtE

Buy this man a beer

Buy this man a beer...a skeptic is always the loneliest man in the room.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tda0-cDyD0U

The Brains & Conscience of Congress

The Brains and Conscience of Congress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lga8uLa02Ug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUEYC6YHgc

Put On Your Sweater...

As I amply demonstrated in my post, the 5 Rules of Government Growth (http://chicago-freedom-forum.blogspot.com/2009/03/libertarianism-as-means-not-end.html) the inherent nature of the modern state is to continuously and pathologically grow, consuming an ever larger share of economic output. Under moderate conservatism, the growth slows, but continues its pathological trajectory. And under "progressives" like Obama, government growth accelerates , hastening the arrival of economic ruin.

The only logical response, the only medicine for this disease is a strong, commitment to reducing the size of the state: libertarianism. Please note that this does not necessarily refer to party affiliation, rather it refers to a commitment to advancing economic and social liberty.

Inevitably most people respond "but, but the end goal of libertarians is to strip the meat as well as the fat, leaving us with a bare bones government and an unfettered free market..." This concern is equivalent to someone worrying about putting on a sweater during a snow storm, because they might get heat stroke. In this day and age, the size and the scope of the interventionist state has grown so large that we are a million miles away from the dangers of an excessively small government.

Another fundamental flaw in t he vision of those who are so concerned about the growth of libertarianism is that even IF libertarian end goals were as dastardly as "progressives" believe them to be, in the context of a pluralist democracy, very few will never be realized. Partisans of economic and social freedom would face a constant, uphill battle against powerful lobbyists and well entrenched special interests that have profited from state intervention. Policy by policy and concept by concept, libertarians would have to fight against endemic economic ignorance and nearly a century of marxist brainwashing.

Facing such an uphill battle, libertarian minded individuals would have to carefully choose their battles and focus on combating the very worst and wasteful government programs. In a pluralistic system with so many mindless statists, libertarians would rarely achieve total victory in a battle against any given policy or program; in almost every case they would have to settle for a compromise. So, rather than enacting radical change, the probably outcome would be a healthy influence on a dangerously bloated body politic.

For example, most libertarians would want to eliminate the unconstitutional federal department of education. But, given the power of teacher's unions and the extreme statism that permeates society, they would have to settle on expanding the reach of voucher programs to liberate more students from failed public schools and eliminating costly and foolish federal programs like "No Child Left Behind." And the chance of convincing the public of the net gain of legalizing all drugs would be nil, so libertarians would focus on decriminalizing marijuana.

For strategic reasons, if not for basic pragmatism, libertarians would never dream of going against the few programs or policies that had not been a total disaster, like child labor laws. They would realize that not only would their chances of success be zero, but in their failed attempt they would lose their credibility and their hard won political gains.

So, when you are freezing in the middle of the winter, put on a warm sweater and don't worry too much about heat stroke. Obama's $3.5 trillion dollar budget, our $11.13 trillion dollar national debt and the 20,466 pages of regulation in the federal register would lead me to believe that for the time being, a "bare bones government" and "unfettered capitalism" are the least of our worries.

http://www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/docs/fed-reg-pages.pdf

How I Turned to the Dark Side

Family and friends who know me probably ask themselves how a "nice, educated Jewish boy" could have turned away from the "liberal light," towards the "conservative dark side."

Very rarely do people make sudden, revolutionary shifts towards a new world view.

Over time, new experiences and observations contradict and chip away at our philosophical edifices. We can either use intellectual gymnastics and sophistry to twist this new information to conform to our world view, or we can use these contradictions as catalyst towards advancing and evolving our understanding of the world.

The 1st aspect of liberalism that I found unsettling was the feats of mental gymnastics that many of my professors and classmates engaged in, in order to avoid facing challenges to their world view. The most blatant example of this occurred in my child and adolescence development class that I took in the course of obtaining my master's in education. When I presented clear and compelling evidence that single parenthood was correlated with negative social, academic and intellectual development, the 1st responses of my classmates were emotional and irrational: "who are you to say what's right and wrong...who are you to judge familial diversity..." I was not troubled by the fact that they disagreed with me - I was troubled by their unwillingness to even consider evidence that challenged their worldview. The fact that no other student challenged the classroom dogma either indicated the slavish conformity of my classmates or a fear of negative academic and social repercussions if they expressed contrary opinions. Either way, it indicated that the "progressive" individuals and organizations that I had once admired were not the bastions of open-mindedness and intellectual freedom that I had once believed. At that moment I took my 1st step towards the "dark side."

My disillusion increase when I learned that Dr. Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard was forced to resign because of the indignation caused when he asked his colleagues to explore and discuss the possibility that innate differences may partially explain why men are more prevalent in the sciences. Professor Nancy Atkins of MIT stated that "if she didn't leave she would have blacked out or thrown out," because "this kind of bias makes me physically ill." If Dr. Atkins and her "progressive" cohorts would have used this as an opportunity to challenge Dr. Summers ideas through research and debate, I would have respected them. But, their first instincts was not to seek the truth - it was to become offended and push to silence the source of their offense.

In all of my master's in education classes, the only acceptable explanation for differences in academic outcomes between students of different races and cultures was racism against minority students and bias in favor European-American students. But, the more time I spent teaching, the more fundamental flaws I encountered in this explanation. In my history and even in my Spanish classes, working class Asian-American immigrants, most who barely spoke English, received higher grades than white, black or even the Latino students. It was immediately evident that the source of their success was their hard work, academic orientation and familial support. And unfortunately, another major factor was the lack of academic focus that many of my African-American and Latino students demonstrated. When I cautiously presented these observations to my professor I was met with indignation, because I had violated the unwritten, but powerful dogmas and taboos of the school of education. While I admired their idealism of intent (to help minority students), I was deeply troubled by their idealism of interpretation - their unwillingness to honestly observe and interpret social and economic phenomena. If we do not honestly face reality, how can we improve them?

Tied in with their obsession on racism and discrimination as the sole source of different social and economic outcomes was a total lack of interest in exploring the causes and dynamics of success. They virtually ignored the experiences of countless individuals and ethnic groups who had dramatically improved their economic and social circumstances. Or more specifically, they did not inquire about the behaviors and values that accounted for this rise. If my professors had done so, perhaps we could have encouraged successful values and behaviors in our students. But, to admit that success is the product of certain behaviors and values would have forced them to admit that racism and discrimination are not the main dfactors of failure - which would have been incompatible with their progressive dogma.

This approach is also demonstrated in the manner in which Chomsky and other "progressives" address international issues. These writers attribute the economic and social ills of nations to oppression by wealthy western nations. Lacking is an exploration of the many nations (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Ireland etc.) that have dramatically raised their living standard through their hard work, innovation and market reform. And interestingly, while China and Vietnam were governed by disastrous socialist policies, they were the darling of many western intellectuals. But the moment they began improving the lives of millions of their citizens through a push towards capitalism, they began to inspire the indifference or hostility of those very same intellectuals. Thus, some "progressives" were driven more by an animus against capitalism and the United States than a real concern for the poor.

Interestingly, a large segment of conservative intellectuals were originally leftists who had become disillusioned by the growing gulf between their ideology and the world that they had experienced. Many had been turned off by the very same undemocratic aspects of progressive institutions that I experienced in the university. Many of my readers share nagging doubts about the leftist world view and have found wisdom in great conservative thinkers, but are unable to take the step and admit that they are "turning to the dark side" and embracing conservative thought. Especially for my beloved Jews, Latinos and African-Americans, this means going against the cultural and intellectual tides of many generations and shaking off the negative, irrational connotations associated with conservatism. If you are not yet ready to come out of the closet, that is OK; pull down the shades, lock the doors, pour yourself a glass of wine and enjoy your Milton Friedman or your Chicago Freedom Forum in the privacy of your home.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp

Hipsters, Rednecks & Libertarians Unite!

Oregon politicians proposed raising the state beer tax by 1900%.

This may be the one issue that I will be able to unite the Hipsters, Rednecks and Libertarians!

Hipsters and other fans of microbreweries should oppose this, because it creates a competitive advantage to larger, corporate breweries that (through production of scale) can bear the added fiscal burden. Many local micro-brewers believe that this will put them out of business.

And hipsters and rednecks alike will be united against the rising cost of beer. Economists estimate that this will raise the cost of beer from $4.50 to $6.00 a pint.

And of course Libertarians are against excessive state intervention.

Regardless of your political persuasion, lets drink to good, cheap beer!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/oregon-beer-tax-of-1900-p_n_167318.html