Politics

Environmentalism against Liberalism

cop21

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP21 was held during the last two weeks at Paris. The event that comprise most of the countries of the world is supposed to generate a compromise on reducing pollution emissions to fight climate change. A noble ideal but as recent news show, regulatory states agencies do things worst for ecology. The event as usually is celebrated by the most statist left and questioned by hypocrite big government conservatives. But maybe there is room for hope. Surprisingly, the iconic liberal environmentalist Bill McKibben made a statement that almost sounded libertarian: “Climate Protest Movement, Not COP21, Key to Preventing Uninhabitable World”.

Bill McKibben is right about climate change because the solution is not to be done by governments but by people and communities who are going to be most effective. The problem is that the answer that McKibben and most liberal environmentalist propose is more state power. The climate justice movement has a catchy slogan that says: “System Change, Not Climate Change”. The idea is useful but there isn’t a real system change if the liberal environmentalist proposals are implemented. Karl Hess once said:

I don’t think you can clean up the environment the liberal way, either, through regulation. The only way, it seems to me to clean it up is to get back to the concept of individual responsibility, so that people are responsible for their actions; so that when you damage the environment, the people affected by it hold you responsible.

Now the fact of the matter is that modern green movement was born as reaction of both Conservativism and Marxism. The original Green Party had the motto: neither left nor right but forward. Initially they were sympathetic to anarchist ideas. In fact the legendary Murray Bookchin was a member of the local green chapter in Vermont. The fact that they weren’t Marxists at least originally made some problems with the left that accuse the green movement of bourgeois reformism. While funny enough, people like Reagan speechwriter John McClaughry was sympathetic to the Green Party with the time he condemned their defense of green socialism.

Today the answer of McKibben could not be understand by a suddenly libertarian instinct but by over-regulated spirit. The activists denounce the limits of the agreements because they were pushing for more. The protest is always welcome but it seem that it could useful some new ideas to solve the problem of climate change. I think free market environmentalism is the answer. Although I don’t think that what I have in mind is the same as Ronald Bailey, I think that cosmopolitan libertarians on issues like ecology are worse than even some liberals. After all the Koch brothers used eminent domain to defend XL Pipeline, an argument that made angry left-libertarians. Conservative libertarians had been sympathetic to some free market ecology although I think some still wait that a relatively sane Republican candidate would bring that to the table. While I had sympathy for both groups, I think that left-libertarians some time dismiss the possibility of electoral politics in process of ecology while the paleolibertarians are too hopeful in it. I think a character that could solve the discussion is Karl Hess is respected both by paleolibertarians and left-libertarians. His proposal for a libertarian environmentalism was both conservative and revolutionary. While the slogan “System Change not Climate Change” shows a distaste for liberal reformism, I don’t think eco-socialism has the answer. With renewal energies getting cheaper, the moment for a free market perspective on environmental issues is now but the problem is that there is public leader for that cause.

Karl Hess was a man of left but he never conflicted his radicalism with honest sympathy to conservativism. The Ron Paul campaign could had bring left-wing environmental concerns with free market solutions but it didn’t. Some talk about we are living the end of liberalism maybe that is true. But if environmentalism is still alive the question is whether their opposition to some agreements would then go in libertarian direction would be too hopeful. The answer is in the frontlines where people and their communities fight for the preservation of their habitat, a lot of times against governments, corporations and sometimes even environmentalist organizations.

Bertmer Wolves

Moral distortion

“We can’t refuse immigrants – that would be racist. We will just have to settle for implementing a police state to keep us safe from the consequences of mass immigration.”

I’ve heard Bill de Blasio, David Cameron and many other pro-immigration political figures from the West discussing why every consumer device needs a government backdoor installed into it to compromise its security so countries can deal with the social burden created by importing a third world underclass. Similar arguments are made for gun control. This line of logic makes sense when it’s granted that racism is the worst thing in the world, even worse than living in an Orwellian dystopia.

That’s an unnerving system of ideas to say the least. And thanks to my bizarre and recent habit of talking about Donald Trump with strangers at social events, I got to witness a genuine instance of “racism is insurmountably evil.”

I mention not hating Trump and the customary hush falls over the room, but some guy is willing to play ball and asks me why I don’t share the opinion of every basic DC bitch. I mention how he’s actually reliably anti-immigration, but how his most recent comments have alienated me, like when he mentioned that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. That’s eyerolly shit that neocons actually believe in their heart of hearts, a far cry from the funny-but-true, emperor-has-no-clothes type comments Trump is known and loved for.

Another recent Trump comment that I can’t get behind, I explain, is the total ban on Muslims entering. That’s stupid for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Shia, Ibadi and Ahmadiyya Muslims are pretty alright. But I point out that that comment isn’t really bad, in the grand scheme of things, since mainstream politicians talk about war and killing like it’s no big deal. War and killing is worse than mere discrimination, right? …Right!?

Wrong, apparently.

He mentions how that’s, like, racist and stuff. I mention how people in staying their original countries might be less than ideal, but it’s not as bad as killing. Noah Millman articulated it really well over at The American Conservative:

But why are these not more important hallmarks of an incipient American fascism than the fact that Trump regularly sounds like a more obnoxious and egotistical version of Archie Bunker? And why is saying “no Muslims should be allowed onto American soil until we’ve got a process for monitoring them” more outrageous than a threat to “find out if sand can glow in the dark” (Ted Cruz’s threat to nuke ISIS)? Why is threatening mass-murder less horrifying than threatening discrimination in immigration on the basis of religion?

I’m not saying that having a President – or even a major candidate – who spouts xenophobic rants is a good thing. It’s a bad thing. I’m just suggesting that we’ve long since gotten used to things that are much worse, and perhaps we should pay a bit more attention to that fact.

I point this out to the guy I am talking to, and then mentions how there’s people dying in Colombia. That’s obviously an exception that we’re not talking about, so he shows his hand as not having any interesting ideas and the conversation ends.

This kind of moral distortion that we’ve been expected to subscribe to is, for better or worse, probably part of the reason why Trump is so popular. People who live in most parts of the United States are fine with how they’ve lived and their assumptions – say, war being worse than racism – but are caught in disjunction between moral compass and that of political and intellectual elites.

(more…)

#ConservativeLivesMatter

bencarson

The presidential election next year has lead partisanship to highest level in American Politics. While Democrats play to a multicultural identity politics with white candidates, the Republicans play white identity politics with multiracial candidates. Both sides commit excess like when liberals accuse Ben Carson being an ally of white supremacists and conservatives accuse Bernie Sanders of being a Nazi. Both claims are false while is true that some positions embraced by Carson are similar to people on the far right, I don’t really think that neo-Nazis or white supremacists would consider a black politician for president. On the other hand, Sanders fascination with Scandinavia isn’t because of their race but with its generous welfare state. Generalize that one side or another is racist had become a tactic for candidates playing to their base.

Donald Trump is maybe the biggest example of white identity politics, liberals had compared him to the Nazis, and however Trump is a loyal ally of Israel. On the other hand liberals love to accuse Carson of being a “House Negro” but when Ralph Nader said the same thing about Obama, liberals accused him of being racist. But it’s not only liberals versus conservatives, Kasich compared Trump to Hitler. Neocons distrust Trump despite his strong Jewish ties and hawkish rhetoric. Conservatives had for a long time argue the theory of “natural Republicans”, that minorities are traditionally socially conservative and therefore would vote republican but as Jim Antle wrote these was only a myth and that when it was time to go to the polls, minorities voted in an overwhelming majority for Democrats. There isn’t an honest talk about race by conservatives, Jack Hunter argue that a lot of people in the right are dismissing the Black Lives Matter movement and being hypocrites in respect of big government abuse by the part of the police.

Liberals are hypocrites on racial issues when they said they are in favor of minorities but attacked viciously minority candidates running against then. No matter if the opponents are conservatives like Carson, Rubio and Cruz or third party progressives like Nader. In 2003, the Democratic Party establishment endorsed Gavin Newson against a progressive Latino like Matt Gonzalez in the San Francisco mayoral election just because Newson was a Democrat and Gonzalez was a Green. However is difficult to predict if multicultural identity politics will always play in favor of Democrats, the victory of an Indian American like Kshama Sawant of Socialist Alternative show that minority third party candidates could made the difference. The Green Party has been savvy enough to make inroads with the Black Lives Matter movement, at least one leader in the movement seem to be running against an incumbent Democrat for the state legislature next year.

It is important that American politicians would talk honestly about race. Marc Fisher reflections on the GOP, show that despite having minority candidates they were lacking in support from minorities. Some people dismiss the idea of Black Conservativism, but even social democrats like Jeer Heet admit that these is a real ideology but says that is not what Ben Carson represents today. The idea of self-reliance for the black community is powerful, it was shared by both Howard Zinn and the Black Panthers. But in a mostly white Republican Party, minority conservatives spend most of their time in search for white voters than making inroads in their own communities. Democrats should also talk about race, for example how affirmative action has made complex the admission to college to Asian Americans. Democrats had for a long time saying that they are in favor of minorities however the regulations that they push had made difficult for minorities to start their own business and also the gentrification is more usual in liberal cities. I sadly had to admit that neither Clinton or Trump would speak honestly on race, they would do whatever to please their base. But maybe the Black Lives Matter movement could teach a lesson to all. Conservatives should learn that while minorities don’t usually support their ideas, they are protesting against the abuse of power by government officials in their protest against police violence. Liberals should learn to respect the fact that not all in diverse communities are going to agree with their agenda and that a lot of their policy made more difficult the life of minorities.

Crony Capitalism with a Human Face

hillaryclinton

Left-wing academics always blame capitalism as the root of all problems of the world today from poverty to war, from racism to patriarchy. They had use capitalism as a synonym of free markets and property rights. Left-libertarians tend to oppose that but I don’t think much people is listening to that. There had historically attempts to reform capitalism some even talk about capitalism with a human face to referring to a form of capitalism that is not global corporate structure of profit but few on the left had defended these models. When Hillary Clinton in the last debate defended capitalism against Bernie Sanders she mentions the capitalism of small business but this isn’t the kind of capitalism that her husband defended. In the 90s the Clintons embraced supposed third way that was neither capitalism neither socialist but I think took the worst elements of both and lastly never took the form of social democracy but it was a form of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is maybe the essence of crony capitalism meaning the marriage between big government and big business with a cut of social services. For the primaries she try to portray herself as a progressive but there are a lot of doubts about the convictions of her statements.

But is Bernie Sanders really different, yes he says he is socialist but a model like the New Deal was born to save capitalism and wants a New New Deal. He is in favor of massive military industrial complex. I recognized that Sanders is one of the few politicians that had the courage to call himself a socialist in United States and contrary to Hillary, Sanders positions with the exception of foreign policy are the same as when he was a young radical. But there is not a real thought about thinking beyond capitalism even the Green Party which in its platform said they to abolish corporate capitalism, they also support another of New Deal called the Green New Deal.

What about the GOP? Libertarians blame the GOP for giving a bad name to capitalism. I once found on Green Party page a comment like that “If the GOP were smart, they would nominate Hillary. She agrees with most of their wretched policies but also is electable”. I suppose that despite the rhetoric the GOP and Democratic Party stand for more or less the same kind of corporatism. After all are neocons really defenders of free markets, I think no one in their right mind could say that. Maybe Hillary Clinton is crony capitalism with a human face.

21636814690_98095de2f6_b

A response to Leon Wolf re: Donald Trump

Ever since Donald Trump decided to upend the Republican Establishment with his presidential run, the pusillanimous underbelly of the political elites has been on full display.

Acela Corridor talking heads despise the Donald. Liberals hate his courting of the poor working class. Conservative intellectuals dismiss him as a showman hypocrite without principle.

It’s all great fun to watch. Donald Trump had topped the Republican primary polls for three months straight, and show no signs of slowing down. Political know-it-alls are baffled by his success. Trump is everything they resent: rich, white, successful, straight-talkin’, and politically-incorrect.

Even professional right-leaning commentators are beginning to wonder how the Reign of Trump ends. Leon Wolf, the newly-annointed editor of RedState.com, is no Trump acolyte. He doesn’t believe the Donald is “a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word” and questions whether the businessman “believes literally anything.” Like most Republican faithful, he’s getting tired of The Apprentice: White House Edition, and wants GOP primary voters to settle on a “serious” candidate.

He poses this question to readers: “Is there anything Trump might do or say that would cause you to stop supporting him?”

(more…)

Jim Webb, Tulsi Gabbard and the Future of the Democratic Party

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb speaks at an event at the public library in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Thursday, April 9, 2015. Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley are both in Iowa, trying to establish themselves as the alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

There has been for a long time a problem for identity in the Democratic Party since the days that George McGovern, the liberalism that he promote was found repulsive but a lot of people in Middle America. Jimmy Carter southern populism was consider weak on foreign policy. Bill Clinton won on a neoliberal platform of corporativism and hawkish foreign policy. The Bush years made some liberals consider an alliance with libertarians against neoconservative republicans in that years the name of Brian Schweitzer sound strongly as an antiwar, anti-tax, pro-gun rights ans pro-privacy kind of candidate but when the 2008 primaries come both Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson who were somehow close to that ideal do very badly in the elections. Civil libertarians like Russ Feingold and Mark Udall had lost their seats and the Democratic Party has embraced identity politics as their main credo. The party hasn’t completely rejected neoliberalism or liberal interventionism but their main issues are cultural not economical.

Jim Webb has supposed to change that. Having been a Vietnam War veteran and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He became the antiwar hero of 2006 becoming a Democratic senator from Virginia. He’s by no standard a pacifist, even some neocon publications respect his positions on foreign policy. But he is still the most thoughtful democrat when it comes to international relations. He wants American foreign policy to focus more on China than the Middle East but at the same time he understands the that the current conflicts are product of the implicit alliance between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. On economics he is a populist who wants more government intervention but I don’t think to the level of the dreams of Bernie Sanders. On gun rights he is closer to the position of Bernie Sanders that is shared both by people in rural areas and military families. He has issues with affirmative action and while is not for open borders with the time has been more supportive of immigration reform. He’s not a environmentalist and supports coal.

The reactions to his performance at the debate had been mixed from some praising to some criticism. I don’t think really that debates were the reason why is doing so badly. He is after all is one of the few democrats which focus on the possibility for the party to regain white voters from rural areas that had been abandoned  by the party for their insensitivity toward cultural issues while the majority of the party is focusing on identity politics for only relying on minorities. Jim Antle argue that if Jim Webb left the Democratic Party for McGovern then he leave the Republican Party for Bush, now he is man without party. I disagree, I think that actually one of recent figures of the Democratic Party, a young congresswoman that in a lot of positions is closer to Webb than any of the old rural democrats. Tulsi Gabbard is a rising star congresswoman representing Hawaii, she is of Samoan descent and is the only Hindu American in Congress. One would think than in the party of identity politics she would be a progressive queen but like Webb she is a former veteran who on foreign policy sounds very independent even questioned the Iran Deal. Webb was saying that debates were rigged while Gabbard was calling for more debates. Webb had been praised from National Review, Gabbard too. A devout Hare Krishna and a surfer, the socially conservative positions of his relatives get her in problems in democratic primaries. Jim Webb wants to run as an independent but maybe he could work with democrats while a fresh face like Tulsi Gabbard would advance the cause of realism and independence inside the Democratic Party. I’m a non-interventionist but I think the realist challenge in foreign policy of people like Jim Webb on hawks like Hillary Clinton still could help define the future of the Democratic Party. Webb is a warrior which is still could have a last fight against a totalitarian leader.

(Image source)