Category Archives: Libertarianism

TOPEKA Republican gubernatorial candidate Arlyn Briggs recorded a campaign commercial outlining his vision of conservative government in Kansas only to find out a prominent Christian radio network had no intention of airing the advertisement.

He said an employee at Bott Radio Network in Overland Park explained the campaign spot couldnt be used on the network after learning of Briggs arrest on a charge of criminal threat against a law enforcement officer. The arrest in Allen County was a misunderstanding that ought to be resolved in his favor, Briggs said, but the radio networks rebuff was a setback in his primary campaign against GOP frontrunner Derek Schmidt, who is the states attorney general.

Im a strong Christian, Briggs said. My job is to be a strong reflection of Jesus Christ.

Briggs, 64, of rural Kincaid, said the legal trouble stemmed from allowing a man being sought by law enforcement for an alleged stalking offense to stay with him in early June. Briggs noticed a sheriffs department vehicle driving slowly past his home, so he called the department to remind authorities of the castle doctrine, the stand-your-ground right of individuals in Kansas to take reasonable action, including deadly force, in defense of a home.

He warned law enforcement officers not to try anything, he said, and pointedly added I may shoot you. He said he wouldnt have actually fired on deputies, and nothing happened. But officers later served an Anderson County warrant on him for criminal threat. He was released June 15 from Allen County Jail.

If successful in the Aug. 2 primary against Schmidt, Briggs would likely face Democratic frontrunner Gov. Laura Kelly as well as independent candidate Dennis Pyle and Libertarian Seth Cordell in November. If victorious in the general election, Briggs said he would donate his state government salary to charity.

I feel the primary is where the contest is this year. Kelly is so liberal, Briggs said. I say vote for the person. Not what they said, but what they do.

Briggs said he was disappointed with Schmidt as a political leader, and asserted the attorney general was too focused on getting on U.S. Sen. Jerry Morans good list in anticipation of eventually running for Morans seat in the U.S. Senate. Briggs said hed challenged Schmidt to five debates, but hadnt received a response.

I think theres growing concern among conservatives across the United States and Kansas with whats happening with government and our leaders, Briggs said.

On social media last year, Briggs was critical of state legislators who he claimed talked about the value of local government control and then passed bills stripping local elected officials of influence. He said they all should be taught a lesson by being voted out of office.

Briggs ran for the Kansas House in 2012 and 2020, but lost both contests. He was soundly defeated in the most recent campaign, falling to state Rep. Trevor Jacobs, with Jacobs securing 83% of the vote in a GOP primary.

He said he lived in Johnson County for about 30 years. He worked for a Kansas City bank and at Hallmark and has been employed as a trucker and farmer. He performed mission work in more than a dozen countries, he said.

Briggs lieutenant governor running mate is Abilene resident Lance Berland, who Briggs said recently performed community service in Colorado to deal with his own legal challenges.

On social media, Berland said we the people were engaged in a fight against Republican and Democrat warmongers, the most bloated, wasteful bureaucracy in human history and corrupt crony capitalists. He claimed businessman George Soros, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett were involved in demise of U.S. freedom.

We have been played, and Americans killed, by our own government and the ultra-wealthy non-citizens who dominate our nation from Davos, Geneva, and Brussels, he said. These people have perpetuated and delivered the world only racism, eugenics, war, toxicity, disease and unnecessary deaths by the hundreds of millions. These people serve only themselves and the devil.

He also expressed disappointment Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden were convinced by the global health mafia to recommend Americans be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Read the original:
Kansas GOP governor candidate arrested on felony charge plunges ahead with campaign - Kansas Reflector

Greg Gutfeld took on all-comers during a discussion on drug legalization during Thursdays edition of The Five.

The co-hosts discussed the impact of Oregons decriminalization of small amounts of almost all drugs. Oregon sought to make treatment available to drug users instead of jail cells. However, very few users have availed themselves of help and fatal overdoses have increased.

This is what happens when drugs are illegal, Gutfeld stated, noting that street drugs often contain the substance in uncertain amounts, as well as adulterants.

All of these poisonings are street concoctions, he said. We always just say, Oh, its opiates. But its actually a toxic poison, its street fentanyl. This is not prescription stuff. So if you loosened the restrictions on prescription [drugs], you will save lives.

He concluded, Thats all I have to say!

Jesse Watters wasnt convinced.

I am not buying this libertarian mumbo-jumbo, he said.

What? Its called facts, Gutfeld protested.

This is a perfect example of libertarianism gone wrong, Watters continued. Greg has been singing the song ever since I came on The Five. Legalize drugs, legalize drugs, decriminalize it. They did it. Oregon listened to Gutfeld. Now, look at Oregon. Everyones dead. Thats what happens when you listen to Greg. You die.

Gutfeld replied, What Im saying is, if somebodys actually using a safe drug, this doesnt happen.

Is heroin a safe drug? asked Jeanine Pirro.

People actually take heroin, yes, he replied. Do you know that fentanyl is actually a drug that is prescribed? Are you aware of that?

Did you know that youre wrong? said Watters.

You will never win this debate, Gutfeld shot back.

If you do what Greg says, you dont get the crap from China, Dana Perino chimed in.

Thats my point, he responded.

Watch above via Fox News.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Continue reading here:
Watters and Gutfeld Throw Down on Drug Legalization

There appears to be some old-fashioned union busting going on here in Illinois. Some people I employ tell me theyve received mail thats intended to convince themor, more accurately, to trick theminto not paying dues to their labor unions.

I use a motorized wheelchair, so I employ a crew of people to assist me in my home doing everyday stuff like getting out of bed and getting dressed. Their wages are paid through a state program.

Theres no way that these raises would have happened if personal assistants had no collective bargaining power.

I call them my pit crew, but officially they are my personal assistants, whom the government recognizes as part of the SEIU Healthcare union.

The front page of the mailing my workers received, in big, bold letters, reads: It can be hard to make ends meet. Why should SEIU take your hard-earned money?

It goes on to claim that the union spends very little money representing its members, and instead spends it on lobbying and frivolities such as hotel rooms and catering.

It then suggests that you can opt out of SEIU and keep more of YOUR money in YOUR pocket.

Page two is designed to make opting out easy breezy. Its a letter addressed to SEIU Healthcare (in both English and Spanish) that begins: Effective immediately, I resign my membership from the Union . . .

If this reeks of libertarian propaganda, youve got a good nose: The mailer is put out by the Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian think tank that calls itself the strongest voice for taxpayers in the state.

It seems that the goal of this campaign is to financially drain SEIU, leaving workerslike theones in my crewwith no union representation at all.

That idea scares the hell out of me because, when Republican billionaire Bruce Rauner was Illinois governor from 2015 to 2019, the wages of personal assistants remained stagnant at $13 an hour. Rauner was a cold, nasty, libertarian type with great hostility toward unions. SEIUs negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement for personal assistants went nowhere with his administration.

Since then, my workers wages have gone up steadily. They currently make $16.50 an hour and will reach $17.50 an hour by this time next year. These increases are part of the collective bargaining agreement that SEIU reached with the current governor, Democrat J.B. Pritzker, who beat Rauner in the 2018 election. Pritzker is also a billionaire, but at least hes pretty progressive, as far as Democrats go.

I promise you theres no way that these raises would have happened if personal assistants had no collective bargaining power. Obviously, the higher wages make my life smoother because the higher the wages, the easier it is to find people suitable for the job.

If Rauner were still governor, personal assistants would probably still be making $13 an hour. And maybe their union would have been busted by now, and they wouldnt have to pay a few bucks a month in dues. But theyd have a helluva lot less money.

See the rest here:
Smart Ass Cripple: Libertarian Union-Busting Tactics Target Illinois Health Care Workers - Progressive.org

The Biden administration wants to make the tobacco industry cut back the amount of nicotine in cigarettes sold in the U.S. to non-addictive levels.

Why it matters: The bid to essentially take the buzz out of smoking cigarettes would be unprecedented in the long-running public health fight to curb tobacco use, which the FDA says leads to more than 480,000 deaths a year.

Driving the news: The FDA can't actually just ban cigarettes, but can create "product standards" that make them less attractive, experts say. So on Tuesday, the agency proposed a rule to establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and other certain finished tobacco products. It is unclear if they would do it at once or gradually.

What they're saying: "This would be really historic," Dorothy Hatsukami, a professor at the University of Minnesota who researches tobacco policy, told the Wall Street Journal. She's among a number of researchers who study tobacco regulatory science much of it funded by the FDA and examined the positive impact of low-nicotine cigarettes on consumer behavior and health, per WSJ.

The other side: Critics say the policy move would make little sense.

Between the lines: One thing backers and critics agree on is the reduction in nicotine could cause confusion among smokers who think cigarettes will become safer.

The big picture: The FDA first weighed setting a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes in 2018, elevating tobacco regulation to a level not seen since the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations.

See the rest here:
Biden administration wants to take the buzz out of cigarettes - Axios

"The Economics of the Parables" (Regnery) is the most recent book by Fr. Robert Sirico, co-founder of the Acton Institute. (Images: Regnery and Acton Institute)

Fr. Robert Sirico is President Emeritus of the Acton Institute and the retired pastor emeritus of Sacred Heart Parish in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the author of numerous essays and several books, including Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, A Moral Basis for Liberty, and The Entrepreneurial Vocation.

His most recent book is The Economics of the Parables (2022), published by Regnery.

Fr. Sirico recently spoke with CWR about economics, liberty, libertarianism, Catholic social teaching, the parables of Christ, and current challenges facing the Church.

CWR: Fr. Sirico, your economic worldview, and that of the Acton Institute, has been described as libertarian. Is that accurate?

Fr. Robert Sirico: There has long been a problem with political labels; the word libertarian is one such example. I have avoided the libertarian label because it is often confused with libertine or associated with the idea that whatever is free is good, and that is certainly not something I hold to. I rather prefer Lord Actons insight that liberty is the political end of man. The problem arises when people think that liberty is mans telos or lifes goal. Of course, Truth is mans telos as so clearly and repeatedly taught by St. John Paul II, who deepened my own approach to economic and political matters.

Liberty is only an option, a potential. Of itself, liberty has no content. It is merely the context in which virtue or vice can be perused.

Milton Friedman once told me that he feared Christianitys insistence on truth claims would result in another Inquisition. I countered that the truth of which we speak is not coercive but something to be proposed, not imposed, which, of course, I stole from Vatican II. At least we agreed that liberty is necessary for society, but not sufficient.

CWR: What is libertarianism?

Fr. Sirico: I supposed it can be boiled down to the non-aggressive principle, which prohibits the initiation of force. Again, thats fine, as far as it goes, but we need something far more robust. We want something more than a free society; we want a good society as well.

CWR: Much of Catholic social teaching condemns socialism and doctrinaire Marxism. However, most of Catholic social teaching condemns various elements of capitalism and economic liberalism. How can one be a good capitalist and a good Catholic?

Fr. Sirico: Capitalism is another of those tricky words that requires clarification. What the Church condemns is a capitalist ideology. Again, informed by St. John Paul, I prefer to speak of the entrepreneur, the empresario who creatively employs his economic initiative in developing resources for human betterment, guided by an ethical orientation under the rule of law. In this way, entrepreneurial activity actually serves the common good.

I once heard (I cant recall from whom) Catholic Social Teaching summed up as condemning the roots of Marxism but only some of the branches of Capitalism.

CWR: Pope Francis famously condemned trickle down economics in Evangelii Gaudium(EG). What do you think of that?

Fr. Sirico: I wonder what the pope would say about a form of economics that percolates up rather than trickles down? I would like to see the pope think about the implications of his statement in EG that, Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.

This describes the free market economy about which I am speaking. Free competition in a market, without the kind of mercantilist favoritism the Holy Father would be familiar with from his native Argentina, actually disables larger companies from preventing individuals and smaller businesses to offer alternatives. This economic freedom has the added advantage of increasing the knowledge of the real costs of production, through free pricing.

Politically dominated economies are really less informed than freer ones because they hinder the information that those outside the favored class possess. This increase in knowledge enables businesses to be better servants.

CWR: There is a school of conservative Catholics known as post-liberal. What are your thoughts on the idea that Enlightenment liberalism is dead?

Fr. Sirico: The rise of the various kinds of post liberal, integralist, or nationalist tendencies has been a deep concern to me. It is not as though such experiments have not be tried, with disastrous results, in the past. The critique of Enlightenment liberalism is perhaps a little too unnuanced in that it fails to see the fact that there was a variety of Enlightenment liberalisms in contention. The reverence for the human form, reason, the scientific method, and human rights was not the invention of secularist humanists. All this came from Christianity, and I would contend that the best of the Enlightenment, including free markets, comes out of thinkers like the sixteenth-century Scholastics of Salamanca.

CWR: Michael Novak played a crucial role in your formation. However, the thought of Novak and other neoconservative Catholics seems to have declined in popularity since the Obama presidency and the Pope Francis era. What will historys verdict be on the Catholic neoconservatives?

Fr. Sirico: I came to know Michael Novak after reading his book The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, where for the first time I discovered a Catholic theologian conversant with the kinds of economists who drew me into an understanding of the free economy and prepared the way to the recovery of my Catholic roots.

Initially, we began a correspondence and when I began my seminary formation in Washington, DC, we became friends. Thanks to that friendship, I quite literally had a front row seat to the burgeoning neoconservative movement of those years in the early to mid-1980s. The Novaks would host a regular series of dinners parties in their home, which I attended (and even cooked for at times) to which the leading lights of the neoconservative movement came: Clare Booth Luce, Charles Krauthammer Irving and Bea Kristol (Gertrude Himmelfarb), Jack Kemp, Robert Bork, and many others.

Progressive thinkers came, as well as poets, artists and musicians. It was anything other than an ideologically closed conversation, often with internal debates among allies. I recall Clare Luce taking on Jack Kemp, Irving Kristol, and Bill Bennett (then Education Secretary under President Regan) all at once in a debate over the proper understanding of virtue. I wrote a bit about this in a previous book, Defending the Free Market .

Mind you, I never considered myself to be a neocon and disagreed at times with any number of them on what I saw as too robust a trust in military intervention or the welfare state. But I am indebted to that experience, which augmented my seminary training, where I was engaging with the likes of Avery Dulles, SJ, Charles Curran, and John Tracy Ellis (the dean of American Catholic history) at the time.

All of this taught me that intellectual movements come and go and sometimes return. The competition in articulating ideas serves to refine our understanding of the truth of things (whether economically or intellectually). In very different language, Newman describes this process theologically in his work on the development of doctrine. I think history will judge the neocon contribution of that period to have been valuable in helping to bring a great intellectual depth to conservative ideas more generally.

As to the specific Catholic contribution, it did more to advance the intellectual credibility of Catholicism in the latter 20th century than any other movement that comes to mind. From its influence flowed vocations to the priesthood and religious life, an army of well-formed lay people who came to occupy important positions in business, government, and academe. If the popular focus has been deflected for the moment, I am confident in the resilience in some of its key ideas, and that its contributions will be retrieved and developed in coming generations. I certainly see nothing like this in the present circle across the Tiber.

CWR: The Republican party could once count on a coalition of conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews who were united on a host of social and economic issues. However, the rise of Donald Trump appeared to demonstrate that a new conservative coalition will drive the Republican Party in the twenty-first century. Has social conservatism been eclipsed?

Fr. Sirico: I might see this a little differently. I dont recall a complete unanimity of the various elements of those social and economic issues, but that people were more willing to work with others with whom they may have disagreed. I never had a sense that I would be excluded from the Novak Salon because I was not supportive of the drug war, for example. We would debate it (mind you, debate, not pronounce talking points), and work on whatever other priority was at hand that we agreed upon.

What strikes me in the current era is that it is very centered on personality, and this can be both politically fragile and culturally dangerous. Today it is not just the left that engages in cancel-culture.

If we are talking in an American context, there is the additional problem within the Catholic Church in that the factors that would promote such a cohesive conservative coalition are weakened by a timid episcopal leadership, who themselves are weakened by the confusion and lack of substance coming out of Rome.

Some of this could be corrected by the emergence of the new technologies, but I am afraid there is so much anger and grand standing and downright intolerance to engage in deeply conflictual yet civil discourse, that until this resolves itself, we are in for an unpleasant period.

What is sorely needed is people willing to speak past the barricades once again. Only in this way can ideas be refined and put to useful purposes.

CWR: Millennials and members of Generation Z have a strongly negative view of capitalism and are attracted to various forms of socialism. Are the glory days of capitalism behind us?

Fr. Sirico: Of course, it was Reagan who said that Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. The threats to freedom come from both the right and the left who are much more similar that many people realize. I suspect that the negative view of capitalism, as you call it, is largely uninformed and esthetic. Ask most of the Gen Xers what they mean by capitalism (or socialism, for that matter) and you will find they havent exactly been reading Hayek or Piketty. In fact, I doubt may are reading very much at all, other than tweets and headlines.

So, the solution to ignorance is information, but information that people consume. This means we need to look to story, parables if you will. Thats one of the reasons I wrote about the Parables Jesus employs a mode of teaching that is accessible to multiple layers of culture, age, and intellectual levels. Their durability is demonstrable in that we are still talking about them.

Then there is the esthetic critique. If what people think capitalism is the Wolf of Wall Street or the Kardashians, then I am with them. This is why a balanced and effective communication of the Church teaching is so practically and morally necessary: We have to demonstrate that the work ethic and private property is indispensable to generosity and self-giving. That there is a harmony of interests, not always a conflict.

But we have to show that, not just give people the data. People are rarely compelled by data, but they are moved by wisdom. Catholic apologists need to cultivate ways to employ humor, music, drama and parables into making the case for Christ.

CWR: Catholic media outletsespecially in Americaseem increasingly split between a left-leaning or Left Cath coalition and an aggressive form of traditionalism. Is there a way to heal this divide?

Fr. Sirico: This is very true. We need reliable sources of communication that understand that just because everything seems to be going insane around us, we dont need (and we dare not), get caught up in that insanity. There is a difference between being assertive and confident and being belligerent, even as there is a difference between being weak and being temperate.

The healing of the divide can be promoted by good and successful models. And I would like to say here, and not to pander, that I think The Catholic World Report is so critical in this regard as a model of professional balance with clear fidelity to the mission of the Church. I would like to think that the Acton Institute is another example of this, both within and outside the Catholic community. For a long-time we have tried to instill in our writers and staff what we describe as the right tone and timing.

That means to enter a conversation with the right language and tone that does not push people up against the wall, but gives them time to consider a different perspective. And then there is the question of prudence as to when something needs to be communicated. As a kid from Brooklyn mother used to say whats on my lung is on my tongue. So, given that influence, I dont always succeed in this, but I try.

If it is any indication that there is a hunger for this kind of approach, the Acton Institute has had its most successful year last year, in the face of COVID. I think people are looking for safe havens.

CWR: What would you say to Catholics who are often confused and even fatigued by the state of the Church?

Fr. Sirico: I would say that I am one of them. Here is what I try to do for my own well-being, spiritually, and emotionally.

I find real comfort is in reading the history of the Church. I fell in love with Newman many years ago and he sustains me in many ways, both in the beauty of his prose, which I find soothing, and the perspective he offers from his vast knowledge of the Church throughout the ages. As unbelievable as it may seem, our dear Mother the Church is not at her lowest ebb in this moment. There have been much darker times in her past from which she managed to emerge stronger and more glorious.

Another opportunity in gaining perspective is meditative prayer. Somehow, I find my troubles dissolve when I bring them to the Tabernacle.

Friendships likewise remind us that we are not alone and it is always comforting to know from like-mind comrades that we are not crazy, or at least not alone in the craziness.

And how could I not add service to others? As a priest I have many (perhaps too many) opportunities to help others, often just by listening. Personally, I find it greatly rewarding to accompany others in their pain and in their joys.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Read more:
Economics, politics, and the parables of Christ: An interview with Fr. Robert Sirico - Catholic World Report

In this week's Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie discuss President Joe Biden's bungled policy statements and abysmal approval ratings.

1:35: Biden botches inflation, gas prices, taxes, and bicycling.

29:21: Weekly Listener Question: Even though most, if not all of you, are resigned to the fate that we'll never see a Libertarian president elected, those of you who do vote typically still vote for the Libertarian candidate, from what I gather. So, my naively hypothetical question is: Were a Libertarian ever elected president, what realistic things would you like to see on their "First 100 Days" agenda? The online libertarian crowd, of course, loves to post routinely about Abolish the Fed, Defund the CIA, Disband the ATF, and much more. Still, in reality, not all libertarian wishes can be granted with the power of a pen and a phone. Rightly so, mind you. Even a well-intentioned liberty-minded dictator is still a dictator, but there are things presidents can do that would be incremental steps toward a society with more freedom. The first thing that comes to mind for me is using executive pardon capabilities for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, but the list certainly doesn't stop there. So, I'm very interested to hear your Libertarian presidential wish list ranging from complete anarchy as KMW would have it to Nick's likely entirely drug-related list to Peter's statist apologist desires and cocktail party requirements, and even whatever baseball mandates and classic rock reforms Matt would request.

40:35: Polarization in the wake of the upcoming Supreme Court decision on abortion.

46:17: Media recommendations for the week

This week's links:

"A Wonky Evisceration of Biden's Bad Deficit Math," by Veronique De Rugy

"Blame High Gas Prices on Red Tape," by J.D. Tuccille

"Fixing Our Economic Woes Is as Easy as Looking to the Past," by Bruce Yandle

"Political Violence Escalates in a Fracturing U.S.," by J.D. Tuccille

"Kamala Harris Is a Cop Who Wants To Be President," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Remarks by President Biden at the 29th AFL-CIO Quadrennial Constitutional Convention," by Joe Biden

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

See more here:
Biden Falls Off the Metaphorical Bike - Reason

An Upstate political candidate is responding to allegations he's not eligible to run for office. Derrick Quarles is one of two candidates in the runoff for the Democratic nomination to represent South Carolina's 25th District in the state house. He placed second in voting last week by 28 votes and will face Wendell Jones next Tuesday for the nomination. "I decided to run this race because there are people in this community who need an advocate, who need someone to champion issues every single day," said Quarles.But two other candidates for that seat Libertarian Jack Logan and Democrat Bruce Wilson, who did not get into the runoff, said Quarles isn't eligible to run. They allege that since his 2004 felony conviction for grand larceny ended in June 2008, he cannot file to run for office until June 2023. State law requires candidates convicted of a felony wait 15 years. Quarrels said he has been pardoned. "I've been dealing with the Democratic Party on this issue for several months and it's only become an issue in the last couple days since I'm in the runoff," Quarles said.He also said he's been properly vetted by the South Carolina Democratic Party. "To my knowledge, every charge that was supposed to be pardoned to make me eligible was pardoned and (the grand larceny) charge was a charge that I acquired when I was a juvenile and so assuming that juvenile charge will not affect me as an adult," he said. "I think I'm eligible to run."Quarles said he is running on criminal justice reform and does not believe mistakes from his past should influence what he is working on now. "While I do have a stain in my past, I don't believe those things should hold me back," he said. "And so I would say to anybody that's looking at something I did 15, 16 or maybe 20 years ago, just think about the things that you've done and ask yourself would you want what you did 20 years ago to impact your life tomorrow?"Quarles said he believes there is time to get a pardon if he does need another pardon, but he said believes he is eligible to run for the seat.WYFF News 4 reached out to the South Carolina Democratic Party Monday. As of Monday evening, we have not yet heard back.

An Upstate political candidate is responding to allegations he's not eligible to run for office.

Derrick Quarles is one of two candidates in the runoff for the Democratic nomination to represent South Carolina's 25th District in the state house. He placed second in voting last week by 28 votes and will face Wendell Jones next Tuesday for the nomination.

"I decided to run this race because there are people in this community who need an advocate, who need someone to champion issues every single day," said Quarles.

But two other candidates for that seat Libertarian Jack Logan and Democrat Bruce Wilson, who did not get into the runoff, said Quarles isn't eligible to run.

They allege that since his 2004 felony conviction for grand larceny ended in June 2008, he cannot file to run for office until June 2023. State law requires candidates convicted of a felony wait 15 years. Quarrels said he has been pardoned.

"I've been dealing with the Democratic Party on this issue for several months and it's only become an issue in the last couple days since I'm in the runoff," Quarles said.

He also said he's been properly vetted by the South Carolina Democratic Party.

"To my knowledge, every charge that was supposed to be pardoned to make me eligible was pardoned and (the grand larceny) charge was a charge that I acquired when I was a juvenile and so assuming that juvenile charge will not affect me as an adult," he said. "I think I'm eligible to run."

Quarles said he is running on criminal justice reform and does not believe mistakes from his past should influence what he is working on now.

"While I do have a stain in my past, I don't believe those things should hold me back," he said. "And so I would say to anybody that's looking at something I did 15, 16 or maybe 20 years ago, just think about the things that you've done and ask yourself would you want what you did 20 years ago to impact your life tomorrow?"

Quarles said he believes there is time to get a pardon if he does need another pardon, but he said believes he is eligible to run for the seat.

WYFF News 4 reached out to the South Carolina Democratic Party Monday. As of Monday evening, we have not yet heard back.

Read more here:
Upstate political candidate responds to allegations he isn't eligible for office - WYFF4 Greenville

"I think that the [Libertarian Party's] emphasis should be on getting us back to our roots as a country," says Justin Amash. "What this country is about is liberalism in the classical sense, the idea that people should be freeto make their own decisions about their lives, and government to the extent possible should just stay out of it."

Amash was a Republican congressman from Michigan once described by Politico as the House's "new Ron Paul" because of his willingness to buck party-line votes on principle. He switched his party affiliation to Libertarian in his fifth and final term, making him the party's highest officeholder since its founding in 1971. He explored a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2020 before changing his mind, paving the way for a run by longtime Libertarian Party member Jo Jorgensen.

Amash was in Reno, Nevada, during the Mises Caucus takeover of the Libertarian Party. He is not a member of the caucus but plans to remain in the party.

Reason's Nick Gillespiesat down with Amash in Reno to ask him about his views of the Mises Caucus, his vision for the future of the party, and his political ambitions for 2024 and beyond.

Produced by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Adam Czarnecki and Danielle Thompson; camera by James Marsh and Weissmueller; sound editing by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Regan Taylor and Isaac Reese.

View post:
'We Believe in Human Cooperation:' Justin Amash's Vision for the Libertarian Party - Reason

Most videos seen every day on social media are usually shocking and explosive. The BUMMER machine, in Jaron Laniers words, feeds off of shock which in turn produces rage. The preponderance of drag queen videos has been one of the latest reasons for shock and anger, and the reactions that include disbelief and anger are not unreasonable. Were not only witnessing drag queens performing what appears to be a striptease but all of this is happening before childrens eyes.

In addition, the sphere of drag queen performances has seeped into innocent and creative activities such as a story hour, during which traditionally a teacher or a librarian is reading a classic story to children. Its an activity meant to induce and encourage imagination, and the juxtaposition of a moral and imaginative formation of children with a man dressed as a woman is absurd.

What belongs in a performative sphere has crossed over into an ethical sphere of family unit. But even if we evaluate these performances from an aesthetical point of view, theyre boring and unimaginative. A drag queen gyrating in front of kids in a club or some restaurant is awkward. Some of them look drunk, and while this is happening, the audience is awkwardly smiling, not knowing whether they should participate in the charade or not.

Its one thing to have a social and moral reaction to something thats deviant. Its another to try to remedy the problem with law. Lately, thats the go-to way of dealing with problems, such as prohibiting minors from entering the drag clubs with their parents. I completely understand the impetus to do something about it but law isnt the path we should take in this case. (Some on social media have even suggested banning drag queen shows and clubs altogether!)

Im generally not in favor of regulation, especially when it comes to social behavior. I find it puzzling that any parent would take their child to a drag queen show or a Pride Parade that has nothing to do with actual gay rights but its merely a display of sadomasochistic fetishes. There is something wrong with that. But taking away their rights (unless theyre clearly physically abusing them) opens up a possibility of subjectivity within law-making. (For example, I find children beauty pageants or reality shows that include children far more psychologically damaging because children are actually exploited.)

Some parents think that exposing their children to such things gives them an opportunity to experience a diversity of people. Just read the New York Post article about parents in New York City who fully agree with the pedagogical system of some of New York schools, which invite drag queens regularly as part of their curriculum. Childrens reactions tell all: toddlers cry at the sight of a drag queen reading a story about transgender matters, and slightly older kids are bored by the event.

A huge problem in the case of the New York schools is that hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers money funded the programs. (This is according to the New York Post article.) The fact that people have no say in this is definitely troubling.

Yet I still find myself concluding that involving law and more regulation isnt the path to take in this case. Pure freedom doesnt exist. William F. Buckley, Jr. made an excellent point in his description of libertarianism: a perfectly consistent, schematic libertarianism would give you an easy answerlet anybody do anything. Including cocaine vending machines. In todays case, think of a safe way of disposing of heroin needles or having a safe place to inject yourself with this toxic substance.

Buckley continues, libertarianism written without reference to social universals isnt terribly useful. We do have social mores and taboos and they exist for a reason. Ideally, the rejection of disorder comes from a community that agrees theres something ontologically wrong with certain behaviors. As Buckley says, A society that abandons all of its taboos abandons reverence. Our culture right now is sick (sicker than during Buckleys time) but I still think that some ailments can be addressed only by pushing against absurdity from a cultural and social point of view, and not legal.

Read this article:
Shock and Awe - Splice Today

The term neoliberalism is ubiquitous in political debate across the West. It commonly serves as a political affront, a synonym for capitalism red in tooth and claw. But since at least 2018, and the publication of Quinn Slobodians Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, historians have countered this habit; they remind us that the word was coined in the 1930s by intellectuals precisely to signal their break with 19th-century traditions of liberalism no less than with contemporary libertarianism.

The American historian Gary Gerstle belongs to neither camp. In The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, his recent book and self-declared history of our times, Gerstle employs the term neoliberal to designate a particular American political order. Order here is a term of art; Gerstle defines it as a constellation of ideologies, policies, and constituencies that shape American politics in ways that endure beyond the two-, four- and six-year election cycles. This is far from elegant, but the basic notion is clear enough: Republicans and Democrats take turns in governing, but the parties do so within overarching frameworks of what constitutes legitimate government conduct, which can outlast multiple presidencies.

A sign of an established political order is that the party initially resisting this orders core ideas eventually caves in and implements policies similar to those of the ideological victors. Franklin Roosevelt inaugurated the New Deal order in the early 1930s, but its crucial consolidation happened two decades later under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower (whose inaugural address was hailed by Lyndon Johnson as a very good statement of Democratic programmes of the last 20 years).In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan proved the ideological architect of neoliberalism, but Bill Clinton, writes Gerstle, played the role of key facilitator the Eisenhower of the centre left, acquiescing in the neoliberal order.

[see also: Britains pass neoliberalism could leave it at a permanent disadvantage]

Gerstle rightly stresses that a political order what others have called a regime and what the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci famously named cultural hegemony cannot be established without an appeal to moral ideals. It is a mistake to view the past 40 years or so as a triumph for what is often misleadingly called market fundamentalism.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. The Crash A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. Ideas and Letters A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

The resistance to the New Deal (and varieties of social democracy in Europe) was justified in the name of morality, not material well-being. Economics are the method, Margaret Thatcher declared in 1981, the object is to change the soul. Her denial of there being such a thing as society is usually misinterpreted: she was not making the case for selfish individualism; rather, Thatcher was calling for people to be responsible for themselves, with the help of strong families and the living tapestry of something like civil society (rather than relying on the state). The fierce lay Methodist preacher turned prime minister wanted her flock to be morally, and practically, disciplined. Had Thatchers (and Reagans) doctrine simply come down to Gordon Gekkos greed is good, it is hard to see how neoliberalism could ever have become the regnant doctrine of our age.

Gerstle shrewdly observes that ideological coherence is overrated. A political order will always contain tensions or even outright contradictions, which can be sources of strength: different outlooks will attract different constituencies. Neoliberalism had a distinctly neo-Victorian strand stressing family values neoconservatism plus the morals Thatcher had in mind when she sought to change British souls. But another strand, Gerstle writes, was a form of cosmopolitanism more akin to libertarianism: a supposedly deeply egalitarian and pluralistic belief in open borders and diversity resulting from different people freely mixing. It took both the stern moralistic mistress Thatcher and the easy-going, formerly dope-smoking sax player Clinton (plus Cool Britannia Blair) to make neoliberalism truly dominant in the Western world.

[ See also: Download the brand new NS App ]

But the danger is that if an order can contain everything and its opposite, the concept loses force in explaining historical outcomes; while, politically, it might seem that resistance to it was futile all along. Gerstle struggles to make good on the claim that the New Left should be seen as part of the neoliberal ascendancy. Although there is a way to get from Haight Ashbury in San Francisco one birthplace of the Sixties countercultural movement to Silicon Valley, its a rather tortuous one, and you have to leave plenty of left-wing ideals by the wayside: corporate Americas selective appropriation of creativity and all its talk of diversity does not prove that left-wing radicals inadvertently helped establish the neoliberal order. True, as Gerstle points out, both neoliberals and the leftist Ralph Nader, whose Naders Raiders public interest advocates and watchdogs played roles in the Carter administration, and both cared about consumers more than the fate of workers. But the former celebrated supposedly free choice as consumer sovereignty, whereas the latter sought to use government to protect consumers after all, unlike Hobbess sovereign, the consumer is not immortal when car manufacturers neglect safety for profit, as Naders famous 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed, argued.

Gerstles ecumenical perspective on what can count as a source of neoliberalism is the result of stressing broad continuities between 19th-century liberal ideals of autonomy and individuality and contemporary neoliberalism. Representatives of liberalism added the neo, Gerstle claims, because by the 1930s progressives and social democrats had stolen the term liberal for their state programmes. But those who added the neo did not show a particular concern with what Gerstle calls one of historys great terminological heists. They felt instead that 19th-century-style laissez-faire had been at least partly responsible for the political and economic catastrophes they were witnessing. They wanted a strong state which actively curated competitive markets and made sure that individual citizens through religion, family values, and so on remained morally robust characters ready to face daily struggles under capitalism. It is true that 19th-century liberals hadnt called for the abolition of government either; but their nightwatchman state was rather more restrained than the neoliberal policeman-preacher state which would actively discipline both markets and people.

In any case, who stole which term from whom is not so obvious: social democrats in the early 20th century including some New Liberals such as Leonard Hobhouse in Britain argued that socialism was the legitimate heir of liberalism. Liberals had failed to understand the socio-economic preconditions of freedom; precisely because they prioritised freedom, rather than equality, socialists would now build welfare states that provided the security needed for the unfolding and flourishing of individuality. In their own minds, social democrats were fulfilling what Gerstle calls the original liberal promise of emancipation.

If neoliberalism was less about freedom than about discipline, the image of Clinton and Tony Blair as converts to market competition and cosmopolitanism but somehow still hip-ish at heart becomes more complicated. After all, Clinton also presided over mass incarceration and workfare programmes designed to discipline supposedly lazy folks; meanwhile, Blairs authoritarian streak manifested in ever more surveillance of British society and policy innovations such as the Asbo and attempts to introduce ID cards.

[see also: Hillary Clinton: I dont think the media is doing its job]

While Clinton and Blair were cheerleaders for technology and globalisation, it is harder to see that their stances really amounted to cosmopolitanism in any meaningful sense: borders might have become more porous, but hardly open; these Third Way leaders celebrated diversity, but did not push for global equality in the sense of anything like worldwide redistribution of resources. Here, the dangers of writing the history of ones own time become apparent: what looks like an even-handed analysis of left and right in fact adopts some of the ideological frames of todays populist right (which relentlessly accuses liberals of being rootless cosmopolitans sneering at poor somewheres).

In other respects, Gerstle reminds us of recent forgotten history that continues to shape our world. He details how under Reagan, TV and radio were liberated from regulations meant to give voice to a variety of political positions; the results were the right-wing talk radio hosts and Fox News, who today are closer to steering the Republican Party, rather than merely serving as its propaganda wing. Clinton acquiesced, not even trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine Reaganites had abolished. Gerstle also shows how the political arch-enemies of the 1990s Clinton and House speaker Newt Gingrich worked together behind the public scenes of political and personal invective to give Silicon Valley the lax internet legislation it craved.

The financial crisis of 2008 is the obvious moment analogous to the stagflation of the 1970s with which to begin the story of the neoliberal orders decline and fall. But other failures early this century also undermined confidence in freedom-as-deregulation, especially the foreign disasters caused by George W Bush & Co, who assumed, with capitalism unleashed, Iraq would flourish overnight. The notion that one need not plan or pay much attention to policy details because government never worked well anyway was propounded by Reagan, but the former Hollywood actor actually relied on experienced Republican bureaucrats to restructure the American state; the triumphalist Bushies, by contrast, had started to believe their own propaganda.

The two most surprising political careers of the past decade are Gerstles main proof that the neoliberal order is falling apart: he avoids the facile symmetry in portraying Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as a right-wing and left-wing populist respectively. True, both attacked free-trade orthodoxies. But one has been a mortal danger to democracy; the other, while attacking Wall Street, is still a politically moderate figure by the standards of, for example, 1970s Scandinavia. The ways they benefited from the specifics of the Obama presidency the last real neoliberal in power also differed drastically: Trump promised to restore white supremacy; Sanders thundered that the Obama administration, still dominated by Nineties neoliberals like Larry Summers, had been soft on finance after 2008.

Is neoliberalism dying? It is remarkable that terms such as oligarchy are no longer seen as evidence of un-American sectarianism in Democratic primary debates. At the same time, if Gerstle is right, and the path to every new order is created by countless activists and intellectuals, it seems a stretch to claim that socialists are taking over the Democratic Party. Trump did brag about factories relocating to the US but working-class conservatism remains a chimera, both intellectually and politically: it lacks coherent policies no less than an actual vehicle to achieve power (the current Republican Party isnt it). Meanwhile, what Gerstle calls Trumps ethno-nationalism he could have used a less polite term was not as much of a break with the Reagan formula than often suggested; after all, Reagan combined white supremacy (but softened by charm and Hollywood-honed humour) with paeans to the market and the military.

Gerstle stresses the importance of the communist threat in legitimating the New Deal and Republican acquiescence to it: the US had to offer workers something to blunt the Soviets critique of capitalism. By implication, the discrediting of communism by the 1970s (if not before) was a boon for neoliberals, who then also a point Gerstle underplays used international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation to entrench their beliefs in a global order. But Chinas Leninist version of capitalism does not provide a real alternative; and while Covid may have re-legitimated certain forms of state action, it would be a mistake to think that the anti-libertarian lessons of the pandemic are self-explanatory: plenty of people assumed 2008 would automatically help the left; the political force that benefited most from it turned out to be the Tea Party.

A somewhat similar theory of political time and long-term trends in American politics, by the political scientist Stephen Skowronek, suggests that a new regime (Skowroneks term for Gerstles order) will only be established after a decisive repudiation of the existing one. In 1980, Reagan won 44 out of 50 states; in 1984 he carried all but one. Some had expected Biden to achieve something similar after Trumps shambolic presidency, which never mind the ethno-nationalism produced no real legislative success other than yet another massive tax break for the wealthiest. But the repudiation failed to materialise. We might have to live in the ruins of the old order for quite some time, without anything new being constructed. And as Gramsci pointed out, a political interregnum gives birth to monsters.

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market EraGary GerstleOxford University Press, 272pp, 21.99

Read the original post:
Out with the old: is neoliberalism really dying? - The New Statesman