NASA
In this picture, taken last week near Buenos Aires, Venus and Jupiter gleam above the sea, joined by the star Aldebaran below and to the right. The dwarf planets Vesta and Ceres, normally invisible to the naked eye, were also captured. NASA points them out in its version of this photograph, available at its Astronomy Picture of the Day site.
Below, recent Pictures of the Day:
More From The Atlantic
Read more here:
Picture of the Day: Jupiter and Venus Gleam Above the Pacific
The progressive Democrat who ruled Chicago for 22 years has a simple explanation for America's decline: "The federal government destroyed big cities."
"Once the federal government said it was going to control urban education, it destroyed the cities," he said. "People fled. It didn't matter who you were ...They mandated everything in big cities. They destroyed us and they destroyed the middle class."
Despite his fierce support of local regulation on certain issues (gun control, climate changeto name a few) Daley's reflection of his 22-years in office conveyed a hopelessness in federal power. "It's not the Obama administration. It's every administration since Roosevelt," he said. From immigration to education to foreign policy to Congress, he described an entire system of bumbling bureaucracy. "Could you see your board of directors meeting every day, continuously, all year around? Congress meets every day, all year around. They have more bureaucracy than the executive branch."
He introduced a utopian vision of the 21st century in which the federal government was reined in domestically and internationally to make way for a more nimble power structure of mayors working together. "We should dilute the power of the federal government," he said. "The more we do that, the better the city and state and the better it is for international relations."
"Mayors can deal with mayors," he said. But the federal government "is sobureaucraticand dysfunctional. There are good people there but they're getting in the way of the century. This century we should have economic power and aid" as opposed to going "the military route."
While Daley has long-depicted himself as an independent-minded Democrat, it's starting to feel like less of a coincidence that two of the country's most progressive mayors (Daley and Bloomberg) are finding it impossible to lend their full support behind a Democratically-controlled White House. Does the office of mayor just lend itself to federal antagonism?
View post:
"Libertarianism: The radical notion that other people are not your property."
We don't know who first said those words. But we've seen the bitty meme circulating the social media sites recently. Could people finally be catching on? Probably only the "radicals"...
But it sounds simple enough, doesn't it? A kind of "do unto others...but not without their permission." Of course, there are other ways to express this basic idea too: live and let live...to each his own and his own to each...and our personal favorite, mind your own [insert expletive of choice here] business...
Alas, some people can't just leave well enough alone. They feel the need, the compulsion, the "hand of history," as Tony Blair once called it, to "do something." Whether or not that something is the right thing is, to their mind, beside the point. Just so long as it's not nothing...
That's the real problem with statism, Fellow Reckoner. All its various machinations are, in one way or another, inherently prescriptive. You try to mind your own business. You try to live a quiet and decent life...but there's always someone telling you there's a better way: their way. Oh, and they'll be needing your money and/or person to make it happen.
But how can anyone possibly claim the right to tell you how to live your life... and to force you to do it?! Seems a tough point to win, no? What about self-ownership? What about the non-aggression principle? What about "live and let live" and all that?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought he found a workaround: The "Social Contract" he called it in his waffling 18th century treatise of the same name. In a nutshell, the social contract holds that, because we are considered part of "society," we must therefore accept the terms - whatever they may be - of that "society." In other words, it posits an implicit consent on the part of the individual to be governed by the state...simply because the state exists, and because the majority have so willed it.
Call it "tyranny of the mob-jority."
But what kind of contract is this, Fellow Reckoner? A "contract" that makes up for lack of consent by simply presupposing it, is no contract at all. What kind of court would uphold such a flimsy non-agreement...besides one owned and operated by the beneficiaries of such an absurd ruling?
Not that the enthusiastic Genevan is solely to blame. He was simply building on the misguided works of previous meddlers. Hobbes gave mens' rights to the government. Locke gifted them to God (But which God? Interpreted by whom? And what for the agnostics?) Few left them in the hands of free men themselves.
Here is the original post:
M. Turner snapped this self-portrait that went viral in the debate over President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- Sitting on a corner of her brown sofa in a modest rental apartment, Miss M. Turner creates hand-made jewelry -- not quite the image you might expect from a public face in the nation's bitter fight over health care reform.
What the health care ruling means to you
In the months leading up to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling about the White House-backed Heath Care Affordability Act, Turner's photo went viral across the political blogosphere, accompanied by the provocative headline "I am Obamacare."
The high court ruled that the law's individual mandate -- the provision requiring all Americans to have health insurance -- will stand. Turner called the ruling "historic," "amazing" and "the right direction."
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Originally posted here:
M. Turner snapped this self-portrait that went viral in the debate over President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- Sitting on a corner of her brown sofa in a modest rental apartment, Miss M. Turner creates hand-made jewelry -- not quite the image you might expect from a public face in the nation's bitter fight over health care reform.
What the health care ruling means to you
In the months leading up to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling about the White House-backed Heath Care Affordability Act, Turner's photo went viral across the political blogosphere, accompanied by the provocative headline "I am Obamacare."
The high court ruled that the law's individual mandate -- the provision requiring all Americans to have health insurance -- will stand. Turner called the ruling "historic," "amazing" and "the right direction."
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Health care and the high court
Read more:
The Koch brothers have been fighting to take control of the Cato Institute, against the wishes of its current leaders and staff, who they deem insufficiently devoted to the cause of plutocracy and the Republican Party. After a lengthy, public fight, the two sides reached a compromise, in which CEO Ed Crane will be pushed out and John Allison will take charge of the libertarian think tank. Allison is the former chairman of BB&T bank and best known for donating vast sums to universities and using his leverage to force them to assign their students to read Ayn Rand screeds. The running of a libertarian think tank seems like a more appropriate venue for Allison to act upon his devotion to Rand's nuttery than forcing it upon students who are trying to learn actual stuff.
Allison's ascension is in keeping with the general trend of the Washington libertarian movement to define itself mainly in economic terms. (The trend has been opposed by a handful of libertarian dissidents, the most prominent of whom have been purged.)
It's not just economic libertarianism in general that moves the likes of Allison, but a specific belief that economic freedom is defined primarily as opposition to egalitarianism. (As opposed to focusing on something like the regulatory power of state and local business cartels.) Allison has called egalitarianism "the most destructive principle in our society." The general thrust of Rand-influenced libertarianism, which you see in the philosophy of Rand-influenced Republicans like Grover Norquist and Paul Ryan, is that the central evil in public life is the poor using the political system to gang up on the rich and redistribute their resources. (For those unfamiliar with my thoughts on Rand and her influence on the contemporary right, you can read them here.)
Allison will no doubt continue to support Cato's libertarian work on foreign policy and social issues, but expect Cato's central thrust as an anti-egalitarian organization to continue or intensify. And since this places Cato in support of the Republican Party, it will probably satisfy the Kochs.
Originally posted here:
To the editor:
Dr. Leonard Duckworths letter to The Courier Sunday was full of frustration. He wondered how the non-thinkers could vote for President Obama. His frustration is systematic of all minorities. All surveys show Americans in general are empathetic and pragmatic. It is these feelings that make our political majority an amalgamation of libertarianism, inclusiveness, the ecologically bent, competitive and nationally centric. Throughout our history, Americas political philosophy has been center-right on economic issues and center-left on social issues.
If you are a liberal, progressive, socialist, etc., you are a minority. If you are a conservative, libertarian, a Tea Party supporter, a follower of the Christian right, etc., you are a minority. This makes for diverse views in letters to The Courier. It is this diversity of thought that makes America great. It is also this diversity of thought that leads to frustration for many. It is not the non-thinkers but the thoughtful center that elects the president.
Duckworth and other minorities need to keep their pens handy. No matter whether Obama or Romney gets elected, the president will pander to the majority and implement policies that frustrate the minority. As ugly and frustrating as it is, this is the American way and in todays world there is no better way.
If you need proof, just think of this; Texas is one of the most conservative states in the country, and its largest city has an openly gay mayor. How strange is that?
Tim Doherty
Conroe
To the editor:
The Tea Party position is that they want to keep their hard-earned money and that they basically should not pay any taxes all the while driving on streets and highways that are paid for through taxes.
They dont want government to touch their Medicare or Social Security, but they do not want to pay any taxes. They fly safely on airlines, are protected by our military abroad and by first responders locally, but they do not want to pay any taxes. They buy foods that are safe to eat due to our Department of Agriculture and they do not wish to pay any taxes.
Continued here:
Why Do We Hate Work? I found these video clips on http://www.youtube.com they were made by The Left-Libertarian on the The LeftLibertarian's Channel A note from the creater of the videos found . . .
See the rest here:
Libertarians think about economic justice primarily in terms of personal freedom. Their argument is that since we all own ourselves and the fruits of our labor, we must be free to do with them as we wish, as long as we do not harm others exercising that same freedom.
Consistent with this thinking are the libertarian ideas of free markets and minimalist government.
According to libertarians, government has only three legitimate functions:
To respect and uphold the validity of contracts;
To protect private property; and,
To keep the peace.
For government to operate or interfere in areas other than these (including the marketplace) violates the libertarian principle of freedom and is thus illegitimate.
The libertarian emphasis on freedom has much merit. We are all citizens of the "land of the free." Yet, freedom pursued without regard for the well-being of society and individual citizens can easily become a fault because of the damage that can be done in the name of freedom.
Libertarian opposition to government regulation in the marketplace is based on the claim that it will stifle the ability of business to compete and that government has no business regulating functions in society that the market will putatively take care of.
This reasoning fails to acknowledge, however, that government regulation ensures that we have safer consumer products, including food and drugs, cleaner drinking water and air, reduced workplace danger, and safer automobiles with higher gas mileage.
View post:
Establishment Republicans have been eager to get past the part of the election cycle where Ron Paul has played an outsized role. Rand Paul?s recent endorsement of Mitt Romney divided libertarians, but the Paul heir?s apparent capitulation to business as usual actually underscores how the GOP faces a more complex challenge to the ideological status ...
See the original post:
From Ron to Rand, the GOP's Paul Problem Isn't Going Away. It Also Isn't a Problem
Libertarianism, a resurgent ideology that is confoundingly on the retreat within the more friendly of Americas two major political parties, represents a fascinating case study in both grassroots political success and failure. The ideology, and the party as well, have had some major victories as well as some devastating defeats over the last four years. A libertarian philosophy has much to offer American politics, but they have thus far been unsuccessful at attracting a broader audience for their policy prescription to the nations nagging problems. Whats more, supporters of mainstream libertarianism seem more inclined to isolate themselves from criticism. Libertarianism is an important element to American politics but it will not achieve a wider acceptance among the electorate if the task of mainstreaming the ideology is left to its present practitioners.
RELATED: Which Party Is Looking Out For Your Civil Liberties?
The financial crisis that began in 2008 with the collapse of the mortgage-based derivatives market forced both Democrats and Republicans to reevaluate their legislative priorities. While traditional Democrats and left-leaning progressives found new impetus to push for legislation that favored fairness and equality in financial markets not to mention an expansion of the social safety net for those most exposed to the economic downturn Republicans found new reason to return to their fiscally conservative roots.
Compounded by Sen. John McCains loss to President Barack Obama in 2008, Republican voters repudiated their compassionate wing; a branch of Republicanism that was happy to oversee the growth of the state, so long as it could be managed and directed in the most politically advantageous of ways. Welfare programs like the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind education reform law, championed by President George W. Bush and his Republican-led Congressional majorities, came to symbolize a GOP that had lost its way.
But in the light of the new reality ushered in by the financial crisis, Republicans found that these programs formerly buoyed by Americas once ever-expanding largess were simply unjustifiable. Those programs short-lived successes were outweighed by their costs. It was in this political environment, amid a thorough repudiation of Bush-era Republicans, that the GOP embraced their libertarian wing.
The tea party movement, born spontaneously in early 2009, drew heavily from the libertarian grassroots organizations that were already active and viciously opposed to the big government wing of the conservative party. As the average Republican found new value in the tenets of mainstream libertarianism, (sound currency, a less interventionist foreign policy and reduced government intervention into the private sector to name a few examples) it seemed clear that the national GOP would quickly follow suit.
The 2010 midterm elections suggested that this transformation was well underway, but somewhere along the line the Republican partys drift towards libertarianism halted. It would be a mistake for libertarians to blame the loss of this opportunity to secure a critical level of influence over the GOP as the result some cabal of establishment-types working behind the scenes to shut them out. Worse, libertarians should avoid consoling themselves in the belief that Republican voters were simply cowed by sharp advertising or too close minded to embrace a libertarian philosophy. No, it was the base of the libertarian movement that sabotaged its own rise.
The Weekly Standards Mark Hemmingway outlines the follies of the libertarian movement in the magazines most recent issue. In his article, he chronicles the small ball issues that the libertarian movement seems to obsess over. The legalization of marijuana and prostitution are among libertarianisms most favored causes that simply do not resonate outside the bounds of the ideologies most faithful adherents.
Furthermore, Hemmingway notes how mainstream libertarians embrace conspiratorial notions that Republican officeholders eschew. [W]hen you start inquiring about the economy, the talk escalates quickly from paper currency to conspiracy, Hemmingway writes. On a Libertarian message board, youre often just one click away from a frightfully earnest conversation about the Bilderbergers and the Rothschilds.
While GOP leaders have done all within the power to tamp down foolish conspiratorial notions about, for example, President Obamas parentage and place of birth, libertarian leaders are often guilty of legitimizing conspiracy theories among their faithful supporters.
Read more here:
Libertarianism In The Obama-Era: Taking Stock Of Libertarianism’s Victories And Defeats
HuffPost's QuickRead...
Loading...
HuffPost's QuickRead...
Edition: U.S.
33k
71k
45k
54k
22k
53k
Read the original:
June 16, 2012 11:24:12 PM
The days of railing against "taxpayer-supported schools" are over. And so, it appears, are the days of Freedom Newspapers, later known as Freedom Communications.
The final shoe dropped last Monday with announcement of the sale of the final chunk of the media empire cobbled together by Raymond Cyrus Hoiles.
Fittingly, there was no government bailout for Freedom. Banks, repositories of dollars, got the government largesse. Newspapers, repositories of ideas, were left to fend for themselves.
There was no Newspaper Preservation Act this time around to save "failing" newspapers.
It was sink or swim. A devil's brew of family feuding, an economic collapse and the quickening shift of reading habits from print to digital proved too powerful for Freedom to overcome.
As for Hoiles, who died in 1970, his newspapers were the Santa Ana Register (now Orange County Register) and everything else, including this one.
Back in the early part of the 20th century, Hoiles could see the future in mostly small markets, where his newspapers could grow along with the population of readers, most of whom went through those "taxpayer-supported schools."
The newspapers' guiding philosophy was a simple one: Libertarianism. He was a tea party guy before there was the tea party.
Five years ago, long after Hoiles' death, he was still being extolled, in a way, on the Reason.com website, where Libertarian ideas live on.
Read the original:
Maybe instead, Spangler, after Kevin Carson and other collectivist anarchists, has very high standards for what it means to homestead land (or property in general), and a very low standard for accepting newcomers as new owners against the claims of previous occupants. I have questioned at length this approach in the past (see for instance my comments on another blog: if these standards mean that you lose rights to any property any time that you stop watching it personally, then it's not much of a property right approach. Are you forfeiting part or all of your property if you invite some people in? If some people move in without your permission? If you go on a trip? If you visit your family? Visit a doctor? Go to the market? Shop at a store (assuming there are any left)? What if you stop watching your belongings while in the bathroom? What if you fall asleep? Can you still claim your property five seconds after it's been seized by newcomers? Five minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades?
If somehow any greedy newcomer can seize the property of previous legitimate owners, then this spells the economic death of the society that adopts such standards for the involuntary transfer of ownership, as no one will take pains to create, build, grow, develop, trade, or otherwise produce anything, for that thing would as soon be taken away by the first-come greedy claimant, specialized in looting producers. Unless some loophole is quickly found in such standards and massively exploited, this society will soon be overrun by neighbours with less absurd laws, who will defend their property against the claims of these anti-propertarians, no doubt under complaints by would-be looters that their defence is "violent" and "aggressive." In any case, such rules would imply a considerable regression as compared to the already quite imperfect respect for property rights in current western societies.
Rothbard may have been a great philosopher, economist and historian, but he was far from infallible, and often ventured with miserable results into fields in which he wasn't qualified. In practical politics especially, whether domestic or international, his tentative alliances led him nowhere except to condone criminals and unsavoury people on both sides of the political spectrum. Contra Rothbard, I will thus paraphrase one of my favourite authors:
It is no crime to be ignorant of politics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on political subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
Of course, the original author of the quote is Rothbard himself, although he was discussing economics, not politics.
Politics is the science of force. Force follows its own laws. The study of force certainly isn't completely unrelated to the study of law, in which Rothbard excelled; but it is nevertheless quite distinct. (I briefly discussed this relationship in my essay Capitalism is the Institution of Ethics.) And so any applicable solution to abolishing monopoly mismanagement of resources should take into account the balance and dynamics of existing forces, and offer a way out that is a win-win proposition to all the existing parties that will partake, and a win-lose proposition for said parties against those that won't. You cannot wish away the costs of politicking and then claim you have an economical solution; you cannot side with some political group and suppose its opposition will magically disappear (if it disappears, it will be through murder); you cannot support violence without expecting a retaliatory escalation of violence.
Now, in all his political endeavours, Rothbard's basic stance has been that the United States government is his first and greatest enemywhich is correctand he therefore supported any enemy of his enemy as his friendwhich is absurd. The czar may have been the first enemy of the Russians he dominated, but in a rivalry between the czar and the Bolsheviks, the latter were hardly the friends of the people, and as tens of millions discovered to their dismay, were several orders of magnitudes more murderous and oppressive a regime than the one that preceded it. Similarly, the US government may be an evil exploiter, but its violent enemies can be a worse threat if they win, and even when they don't, their violent actions cause the situation to become more violent rather than less so. Sometimes, it is better to recognize that you have no dogs in the fight; and sometimes even, it is indeed better to help quickly put to death the rabid dog rather than let it either win or infect the other one.
As such, for instance, Rothbard's infamous praise of the Vietnam communists as enemies of the US government is particularly disingenuous. Rothbard is no authority at all in the realm of politics. In the particular piece linked to by Brad Spangler, he is naive at best in his praise of Tito's policies as an improvement over not just the Stalinist status quo (which they may well be in this particular case; though one should be wary of praising his policies in general, for as a whole they have led his country to civil war), but also the American status quo (which is demonstrably absurd, whichever way you measure things).
The privatization that happened in many countries of Eastern Europe as they abandoned communism, however imperfect, at least recognized some sound principles that Rothbard seems to ignore, and that could be systematized: there have been attempts to return property to previous owners in the few cases when they could be identified; sometimes, the new regime identified a class of legitimate creditors of the State (there is a justification for offering compensation to distinguished victims of State oppression, and for considering currently occupied possessions and promises of future welfare payments, if not as ownership titles of said resources, nevertheless as claims of credit against assets to be liquidated). Otherwise, it was recognized that the remaining capital goods should be distributed among the mass of undistinguished victims, the former taxpayers and oppressed subjects of the State.
One could endlessly argue how much each one should be entitled to as compared to other people; an equal distribution amongst people without a distinguished title is but a good first approximation, and one that is easier than others around which to gather political consensus. Workers and managers in a company were often recognized to have a title to some of its assets, but not all of them (and hopefully, no bigger a share than workers and managers have through stock grants in a typical free-market company); for inasmuch as the capital was provided by taxes and oppression imposed on the population at large, that population has a title to this capital. Basically, as Mencius Moldbug points out, the proper treatment of the State is to declare its bankruptcy and liquidate its assets to the benefit of its victims and other legitimate creditors.
Original post:
Thanks to venture capitalistFred Wilson, a backer of hip tech companies like Twitter and Tumblr, there's a new catch phrase to describe Silicon Valley politics: "Obamacare scares me."That's what Wilson wrote in this post, "The Far Center Party," where he discusses his inability to fit in with our current political parties and praised New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "I am socially liberal. I was thrilled when Obama recognized a gay couple's right to marriage. I am fiscally conservative. Obamacare scares me," he writes. "I am not really comfortable in any political party." His comment has had quite the polarizing effect on Twitter, eliciting mocking responses like this from New York Times developer Matt Langer. "LOL @ Every Single Word Of This," he tweeted. But, there's a good amount of people hear-hearing Wilson. "Agree 100% with @fredwilson. The Far Center Party," tweeted Darren Herman, a Silicon Valley ad guy, demonstrating the tech world's particular breed of libertarianism.
Wilson has a lot of money, so it makes sense that he calls himself a fiscal conservative. But the Obamacare comment reveals a more complex version of libertarianism, embodied by PayPal founder and Silicon Valley investor extraordinaire Peter Thiel -- a "libertarian futurism" as George Packer described it in The New Yorker. Packer highlights the following quote from Thiel's essay 'The Education of a Libertarian,' which sums up the contradictory position of these Silicon Valley libertarians.
In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its formsfrom the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called social democracy. . . . We are in a deadly race between politics and technology. . . . The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism.
Like Thiel, Wilson calls for an escape. "Our country is hostage to the two political parties who control our electoral process. Those of us in the Far Center Party should figure out how to change that," he writes. Though he doesn't call for a complete removal from American politics, like Thiel he believes American politics have failed. Thiel traces that failure back to 1920 -- the beginning of the American welfare state. He continues:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to womentwo constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarianshave rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron.
Although it doesn't come off quite as offensive, Wilson is having this same realization with Obamacare, also a "vast increase in welfare beneficiaries." Obamacare is the marriage of his opposing liberal and conservative political values, to him, an oxymoron.
The rich of Silicon Valley have found themselves in a political predicament: They want to make the world a better (more progressive) place, but they think technology (a.k.a their businesses) should be the ones to do it -- not government. That doesn't fit well with the current political structure, neither the social nor economic policies. Politics is broken, they say, so let's abstain. Although it might sound like a particularly depressing political theory -- This isn't working, let's just ignore it -- Thiel hasn't lost all hope, he explains to Packer.
I actually think it is a big step just to ask the question What does one need to do to make the U.S. a better place? Thats where Im weirdly hopeful, in spite of the fact that a lot of things arent going perfectly these days. There is a very cathartic crisis thats gone on, and its not clear where its going to go. But at least everyone knows things are rotten. Were in a much better place than when things were rotten and everyone thought things were great.
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at rgreenfield at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
See the article here:
HuffPost's QuickRead...
Loading...
HuffPost's QuickRead...
Edition: U.S.
32k
71k
45k
53k
22k
52k
See the original post:
12-06-2012 16:16 Welcome to Ask a Libertarian 2012 with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, coming out in paperback later this month. Pre-order: On June 12, 2012 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. In this episode, they answer what's the most libertarian film, spotting libertarianism in pop culture, and how pop culture can liberate people even behind the Iron Curtain. Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, and Tracy Oppenheimer with help from Katie Hooks. To watch answers from 2011's Ask a Libertarian series, go here:
Originally posted here:
Ask a Libertarian Lightning Round: Libertarianism in Pop Culture
The Obama campaign's "Life of Julia" ad is a disturbing sign. It suggests that political strategists, pollsters, and campaign advisers must think that the people living off government are getting to the point where they can out-vote the people paying for government.
See more here:
Rep. Robert Goodlatte withstood a challenge from tea party-backed Karen Kwiatkowski on Tuesday to claim theRepublican nomination for his 11th term in Congress from the 6th District.
Goodlatte captured 66 percent of the districts vote, which includes Lynchburg, Amherst County and part of Bedford County. Just 7 percent of registered voters turned out.
Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force officer who lives in the Shenandoah Valley, attracted small but enthusiastic crowds to campaign rallies where she aligned herself with Ron Pauls brand of libertarianism.
Goodlatte relied on his incumbency, refusing to debate Kwiatkowski.
He will face Democrat Andy Schmookler, a Rockingham County author, in the November election.
The 6th District contest was slightly closer than two other Virginia primaries Tuesday in which incumbent Republican members of the House of Representativesfaced challengers.
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia Beach, captured 90 percent of the vote againstR. M. Bonnie Girard in the 4th District.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Richmond and House majority leader, was renominated with 79 percent of the vote over Floyd Bayne in the 7th District.
Read more:
LIBOR TRADERS AVOID CRIMINAL CHARGES IN BRITISH PROBE
Illustration by Andy J. Miller
Widespread U.S. unhappiness with the government would seem to call for a blockbuster election, such as the one we had exactly a century ago, when both candidates offered sweeping plans for public renewal.
An election fought over such visions makes more sense than our current jobs-growth donnybrook. The president has far more control over the federal government than over the economy. The 1912 election even provides a template for contention, with one candidate urging a Hamiltonian platform of reform through big government, and the other supporting (at least in the campaign) a progressive libertarianism.
Today, just 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time or more. Only 41 percent agree that the government is really run for the benefit of all the people.
President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 as a reformer who connected the recession with the absence of sensible oversight that can occur when special interests put their thumb on the scale. Two years later, the Tea Party rode a similar surge of anti-governmental anger fueled by the financial bailout and health-care reform or, as Sarah Palin put it, the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest.
This unhappiness mirrors the mood in 1912, when a swath of the U.S. also believed that special interests had subsumed the state. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were Progressives who railed against the shaping of our legislation in the interest of special bodies of capital and those who organize their use (Wilsons words) and politicians serving the great special interests of privilege (Roosevelts words). More than 75 percent of the U.S. votes cast in 1912 went to Wilson or Roosevelt or the Socialist Eugene V. Debs. The Republican candidate, William Howard Taft, received less than a quarter of the votes.
The election was the culmination of a wave of reform in the late 19th century, fueled by the malfeasance of politicians such as Boss Tweed. His archenemy, Samuel J. Tilden, ran on the 1876 Democratic ticket pledging to fight the corrupt centralism that had infected States and municipalities with the contagion of misrule, and locked fast the prosperity of an industrious people in the paralysis of hard times. For Tilden-era reformers, government would be fixed if civil-service reform replaced bad people with good people.
By the late 19th century, reformers came to blame the whole system, not just individual politicians. Muckrakers, such as Lincoln Steffens, uncovered the business leaders who funded the political machines. The transport magnate Robert Snyder, for example, paid $250,000 to St. Louis legislators in return for a traction franchise that he rapidly resold for $1.25 million. Corporate chieftains were rumored to run the U.S. Senate, as depicted in a splendidly vicious 1889 Puck cartoon. Some fad- like reforms sought more democracy, such as the referendum and judicial recall powers, and some involved less, such as replacing elected mayors with professional city managers.
Today, antipathy toward Wall Streets political clout and the bailout gets mixed together with essentially unrelated claims of other financial-sector misbehavior, such as credit- card fees. A century ago, hostility toward bribery and influence was also combined with resentment of other corporate misdeeds, such as Jay Goulds stock-market manipulations and Andrew Carnegies strike-breaking at the Homestead mill. Ida Tarbell lavished poisonous ink on John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Co., which used its alliance with the railroads to shut out rivals.
Read the original: