Limited Government Socialism

In a recent Vox post, Will Wilkinson argues that welfare states allow economic freedom. He makes the point that Scandinavian countries and Canada had more economic freedom than United States according to several rankingsdespite having a somewhat robust welfare state. For years in American politics mainly Republicans but often some neoliberal Democrats and even the most corporatist wing of the Libertarian Party have argued for trickle down economics in which they cut social programs while cutting taxes for the rich. Since Reagan, these have been portrayed as some sort of free market solution. Since the rich already receive generous handouts in the form of corporate welfare these policies are hardly libertarian.

What Wilkinson is proposing is some sort of limited government liberalism in line of liberaltarian ideas. He argues that a state should provide a basic safety net and social services but allow a truly free market. Even some right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul have expressed surprise about how often Republicans want to cut social programs but enlarge the military budget (Wilkinson is also a critic of militarism and said if we want cut spending it should be military spending).

Wilkinson is right, he understands that undermining social programs and the safety net allow the rise of populists like Trump, who if victorious would make the economic problems of the country bigger. But I don’t think there is constituency for what Wilkinson is arguing (at least among average liberals), most of centrists in American and global politics are neoliberals not libertarians they would like to continue with corporatism in a disguise of being in favor of the free market.

What happened in Scandinavia is curious because social democratic governments recognize the failure of central planning and allow some economic liberalization that promoted economic growth and generate a prosperous society. But they are hardly libertarians. That the Scandinavian model is successful because these countries are ethnically homogenous is a very racist argument. Yes, the Scandinavian countries have large white majority, but they had accepted large amount of humanitarian refugees from Africa and Middle East, so they are more diverse than Poland or Hungary, both countries with serious economic problems despite being more homogenous. The big reason the Scandinavian model can’t be put in place in other countries is that they are still small countries that are easier to manage. I can’t imagine a Scandinavian model working in larger states like United States, China or India.

But there is still something that could work. I’m a left-libertarian closer to anarchism that to minarchism but I would like present a minimal program who could require being involve in electoral politics. My proposal is limited government socialism. I know the term sounds funny but it was inspired when I listen Ralph Nader in an interview at the Cato Institute saying he was willing to cut 50 percent of Washington spending, you never hear that from a DLC type Democrat.

I think it shouldn’t be a surprise the American left is broader than just liberals, for example the New Left was widely decentralist and to some extend their influence continues even today. John O. Norquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee who described himself as a fiscally conservative socialist is one example. I think this model is better than the Big Government Libertarianism proposed by Wilkinson. My difference with Norquist was that his expertise was urban planning. I support something close to the Carl Oglesby style of libertarianism. Oglesby the former president of the SDS knew that among liberalism there is an imperialist strain that talks in language of the left: human rights and democracy. But he knew that good intentions could end up in mass murder. On the other hand Oglesby used to think that his particular style of populist libertarianism (not to mistake with libertarian populism) could appeal to both left and right. On the left there was a call to decentralization and on the right the concept of a truly limited government.

So in doing that, the state should be reduced to a few public services like education, healthcare, security and infrastructure while offering a Universal Basic Income. Stop privatizing things and allow a truly free market arrive. The state shouldn’t have public companies but enforce a strong property rights protection against pollution could be good for the ecology. The state shouldn’t recognize patents because they are government granted privilege and that would lower the cost of medicines and software. End the War on Drugs. Erase zoning codes. Eliminate mandatory occupational licenses. Repeal the Patriot Act. Close the military bases abroad.

Someone could ask what about the social issues. As someone could guess I and the majority of socialists are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-discrimination and in favor of a more free immigration system. Though I don’t think that an adherent of limited government socialism makes you a SJW — quite the contrary, Karl Hess of all people used to argue that radical left should seek an alliance with religious conservatives because if they honest about their beliefs their main allegiance is to God not the state. Women’s rights are the reason some believe the left-right libertarian alliance of the 60s fell apart, but I think the respect of different opinions should be fundamental.  On gay rights, I think respecting religious liberty should be fundamental. If communities do not want to accept immigrants they shouldn’t be forced to do, in the case of America it should try avoid get into conflicts that generate refugees. On discrimination, I think affirmative action is a lame government response to the problems affecting minority communities, my belief is that less intrusive welfare programs could generate an economic boom in these communities and as result social transformation, then I think affirmative action would no longer be needed.

Even a right-wing populist libertarian like Ron Paul says the word capitalism shouldn’t be defended, that the goal libertarians should be promote free markets along the board. I agree, I’m a socialist not because I’m a fan of the Che Guevara or Fidel Castro but because I’m a fan Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. I think early American socialists were right about what American foreign policy would do to America: make it less free. To be fair, I consider myself a libertarian in the Karl Hess way, so libertarianism, anarchism and socialism are synonyms for a decentralist kind of politics, but like Hess I admit there are conservative elements in my own politics, that’s why I admire people like Bill Kauffman.

My plan is far from perfect but I think it’s better than what social democrats and even some left-wing revolutionary parties do when they reach power. That is: to get along with the oligarchy and enact a few reforms while not promoting true social change. Just to be clear, I think limited government socialism will still be part of libertarianism because I think it is still compatible with the ideal of creating a free society. I would even add that it’s not incompatible with the non-aggression principle, even if I know that anarchists would disagree. On anarchism, despite of my personal sympathies for the Zapatistas and the Kurds, I don’t think that the majority of nation states are moving in that direction but if I’m wrong I would be happy, this model is just one model inspired by my peculiar politics that are in the middle of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.

The Dark Night of the Liberal Soul

My reflections about the identity crisis inside the Democratic Party is the topic of my The American Conservative piece.

The fact that a socialist in his 70s was able to be a real challenger to the Clinton establishment shows that third-way liberalism doesn’t sell like in the old days. While some describe Sanders as an unreconstructed New Deal Democrat, for a lot of his life he was an independent and third-party guy. His ideals were closer to the romantic vision of the socialist revolution than to the incremental reforms that liberals always promise.

Read the whole thing to know why this division could affect the of American liberalism.

When reality comes crashing

I published my first editorial at The Daily Caller. Check it out.

Venezuela should have been the Norway of South America. Pundits had been predicting this since 2010, when it was clear that the country would dethrone Saudi Arabia – a much wealthier country with an almost identical population – as having the largest oil reserves in the world.

But in spite of all this, Venezuela has still managing to undergo what Time described as a “complete collapse of society.” The democratically elected socialist government tried to faithfully implement a centrally planned economy and smash capitalism. By some metrics they succeeded. They smashed the markets for toilet paper and made it nearly impossible to come by, they smashed the market for food and forced citizens to wait in hours-long breadlines, and then they even smashed those lines by removing people from them based on the last digits on their government ID cards. Now food scarcity is so bad that people are set to be forced to work on farms.

The chasm between the notional and the actual couldn’t be larger. Not once did the ruling elites of Venezuela consider that their naïve – no, psychotic – utopianism might lead to bad results. President Nicolás Maduro’s adherence to ideology led him to blame the crisis on “economic warfare promoted right-wing sectors” of the country. It’s clear that, in making that statement, he was under the influence of ideology and not facts. He, just like every other socialist, is trying to relitigate 150 years of known economic fact: countries with free markets and powerful “right-wing sectors” don’t have breadlines and don’t have catastrophic shortages.

Trump’s Foreign Policy


The nomination of Donald Trump this week could had been an opportunity to begin to understand the foreign policy of the New York businessman turned into politician. Like in many other areas of policy it doesn’t sound clear what he means but it certainly doesn’t sound like an average Republican. Even in an event organized by the Washington Post at the convention to discuss this topic, two experts in national security like Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Cato Institute’s Emma Ashford seem unable to underline a coherent vision of what Trump wants America to do overseas.

But despite the somehow incoherent mumblings of the insurgent politician there are some clues that could very useful to understand the logic behind his statements. Trump had expressed sympathy for Putin who he considers a strong leader, while the neoconservative wing of the GOP had sounded very hawkish on Russia comparing the Putin government with the Soviet Union. There is a wide variety of conservative that also had express sympathy for Russia, but in general there a two groups, the paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan who consider Vladimir Putin a defender of Christian values or populists like Sarah Palin who appreciate the image of Russian president as a tough leader. Trump had said that he would like to maintain good relations with Putin and the Russian president had also express sympathy for the real-estate mogul. But it seems that there is an obstacle in the relations: NATO.

Both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists had long consider that now there is basically a new Cold War with Russia. United States representing a form of liberal democracy and Russia as an authoritarian vision of right-wing populism. Is not surprise that neoconservatives like William Kristol is so adamantly an opponent of Trump, some neoconservatives like Robert Kagan are backing Clinton whose own hawkish views had been reinforced by her advisors coming the liberal interventionist wing of the Democratic Party. There is where NATO enters the conversation. Some consider that after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO should had disappear. But it didn’t and the relatively bad relation between America and Russia are in great part due to NATO expansion in former communists countries which Moscow consider part of their area of influence. The annexation of Crimea is maybe the greatest point in this chess played by Putin as a form of counter the influence of America and Europe in Ukraine.

Trump own visions of NATO probably are the most revealing aspect of his unorthodox foreign policy. He initially went as far as suggesting that the US should withdraw from NATO. Those who accuse Trump of being just a demagogue that would do anything to appease the Republican base never knew how to answer while someone who is running as a Republican would make such a polemic statement, considering that while respected by part of the conservative base both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul where defeated in the primaries. Not only that, while he now maintains that he is saying that he wants NATO members to pay their fair share to be defended by the US, he could easily had say that he was misunderstood like when early in his campaign he was in favor of Syrian refugees but then he wanted to deport them. However the level of criticism of NATO for GOP and Democratic insiders always consider any question about unforgeable especially after its latest comments doubting if the US would defend its Eastern European allies against a threat from Russia. To the point that even some Democrats think that Trump is a Manchurian candidate of Moscow, the campaign manager of the Clinton, Robby Mook goes as far to suggesting the Russian government was involve in the DNCleaks which goal was to help elect Donald Trump even if until now there is not tangible evidence of that.

One recurrent topic in his campaign is the America First slogan. While used by isolationists in the past and most recently revived by the campaigns of Pat Buchanan. Jesse Walker of Reason had pointed out referring to his foreign policy speech that Trump is an instinctive nationalist which explains why he could sound hawkish at times when talking of the Middle East and dovish when talking of Eastern Europe. While some think that here was a hint of Buchanism in his acceptance speech at the convention when he goes as far as saying that this election was “Americanism over globalism”, an important point to be made is that Trump started his political career considering running against Buchanan in the Reform Party primaries and while Buchanan endorsed him early on the campaign, Trump doesn’t speak of Pat and neither invite him to convention despite the lack of prominent speakers. The populist nationalism of Trump is right-wing like Buchanan but is not anti-imperialist. Buchanan thought that after the end of the Cold War, the tradition of Old Right anti-interventionism should be revived. That’s why Buchanism and Trumpism collide especially in the Middle East where Trump still wants an active presence.

There are several accusations by liberals that Trump is a fascist but other point that is made is that if elected he would be closer to Berlusconi. Is funny that beside that phrase there had been not much insight because while the political party of Berlusconi, Forza Italia, was somehow in the right it was ideologically broadly enough to include socialdemocrats which the GOP consider an anathema to conservativism. But Berlusconi was close to both Russia and Israel, two of the main alleged future allies of Trump. But I really doubt that beyond of that they would had that much in common.

Israel is an open question. Trump initially sounded neutral. He then was backed by longtime supporters of Israel like Sheldon Adelson who may explain why his visions had started to shift and his relation with a pro- Israel businessman like his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Now he started he sounds as hawkish on the issue as any neocon.  Trump was proud of the Republican platform which he considers: “the most pro-Israel of all time”. Some consider that his supporters are anti-Semites and that Trump itself is anti-Semite despite having a Jewish daughter but that hasn’t weak the support among some Israel hardliners.

The Middle East in general looks more dubious because there is where he for moments sound hawkish but at the same time breaks with the neocon orthodoxy. He seems having no interest in democracy promotion while calling to fight against radical Islamic extremism. He’s against the Iran deal and doesn’t want to speak about Turkey. Saudi Arabia is a curious case while Trump is critic of Saudi Arabia at the same time he would not be like a president who would go to accuse continuously the country for its human rights abuses and maybe their share hate for Iran could make both work together on some issues.

While Trump talks about he wanted to be unpredictable and dealmaker with all the world, he started his campaign by railing against Mexican immigrants and accusing the Mexican government of sending criminals to America. Mexico has been a reliable American ally and alienate them in that form was a truly mistake. Trump would risk having bad relations with the broad Latin America. It wouldn’t surprise me that if elected, presidents of the region would try to avoid him. Even the Latin American right who generally is pro-American is deeply anger with Trump and his campaign.

On Asia, he wants to withdraw militarily while accusing China of currency manipulation. Wants Japan and South Korea to defend itself. He doesn’t sound to care about the destiny of Taiwan or Hong Kong and the Chinese influence in the region or any elaborate thoughts on the South China Sea controversy. East Asia is where strategic thought is needed but that is the area of which Trump knows nothing. Being the geographical region where the Obama seems to having being successful with important advances improving the relations with Southeast Asian countries which geopolitically could limit Chinese influence overseas.

In general we could say that Trump is neither an isolationist, anti-interventionist, realist, liberal interventionist nor neoconservative because is impossible to put Trump in a mold. But foreign policy is actually where he is not as unpredictable as in other policy areas. It would be difficult to find him speaking ill of Russia and Israel. The question of who is more hawkish Trump or Hillary is hard to answer since Clinton is more hawkish on Russia but on some issues like the Iran Deal she is able to take a realist position. However to credit of Trump he had taken some risks in being critical of NATO something not even Sanders did. Despite that if one reads the GOP platform the foreign policy in the Republican Party is still managed by the neoconservative wing of the party and his victory speech he basically accused all problems of America to Hillary Clinton despite that if something the GOP had been more active bad decisions overseas. Trump’s foreign policy is in the making and we could expect surprises on the way but I tend to suspect that while he is skeptic of globalism, once in office the GOP establishment could push him in a more mainstream hawkish line.

(Image source)

The Greens come back

The discussion about the campaign of Jill Stein of the Green Party is the topic of my The National Interest piece.

She has also become politically savvy, trying to appeal to disenfranchised Sanders voters who, especially after the leaks, feel that the DNC has betrayed them. She even went to the Democratic convention trying to directly reach some Sanders supporters. The surprise of the so-called “Demexit” even included people raising Jill Stein banners inside the DNC.

Read the whole thing to know about these particular campaign different from others.