[Lnc-business] Credit where credit is due – Request for LP press release on Trump's bold regulatory reforms

[Joshua Katz]

I, for one, would like to speak in opposition, or at least caution.  But
first, let me say how proud I was to be a Libertarian this weekend.  Our
President provoked a humanitarian crisis, and a constitutional crisis, in
pursuit of avowedly illiberal ends, and this party did not hem and haw.  I
want to thank staff and volunteers for quickly putting out content to
address the crisis, and being loud and strong.  Moreover, we weren't only
great, we were good - that is, not only were we correct, but our
communications were on-message and exactly the style and form of
communication that I think boosts our credibility and, ultimately,
electoral viability.  Not from this party did one hear "but Obama did it
too," not from us did one hear "well, at least he's doing something," or
sarcastic snipes at liberals for daring to oppose this while favoring
taxation.  Not from us did one hear "well, technically..."  Not from us did
anyone hear "it's only 90 days, let's be reasonable."  No.  We stood up for
the rights of those most in need of protection, and we did not reason with
tyranny.  Libertarians must be a voice for those who cannot speak, if we
must choose whose voice to be, not a voice for those who own lobbyists.
Freedom is the surest protection for the vulnerable, and we need to always
make that case.  Dissent does not end at the Armani's edge.

Now, let me turn to why I disagree.  *Today, there are people detained in
airports, illegally denied access to lawyers, despite 5 court orders
demanding, variously, that they be provided attorneys, that they be
released, and that they not be deported.*  At least one person was deported
to a war zone over the weekend, and a court order has been issued to go get
him and return him to the United States, but he has not, to my knowledge,
been returned.  To lavish praise on Trump for his EO of yesterday, although
it properly treats him like the 5 year old that he is, is to send a message
to those detained in defiance of court orders - "You are forgotten."

It must be remembered that, despite the circumlocutions of many
conservatives and some libertarians, the growth of tyranny we are seeing
from this populist monstrosity is not normal.  It is not "more of the same"
or a difference of degree.  It is a new level, of an entirely different
sort from, say, the steady growth of government by regulation.  We cannot
compare the two, we cannot establish the trade between sending people to
die and denial of due process, on the one hand, and decreasing the
regulatory load on hair-braiding, on the other hand - as crucial as it is
to cut those regulations.

Even under normal circumstances, let me point out, this party only ever
engages in this sort of thing when the Republicans are in power.  I do not
recall praise from this party when, say, President Obama reestablished
relations with Cuba, negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran, or pressed
against his own party for freer trade (in fact, this party mostly opposed
that last one, and its membership ridiculed our ticket for standing for
trade).  We tend to adopt the position of opposition when the Democrats are
in power, but not when Republicans are in power, then wonder why we are
mistaken for a part of the right-leaning coalition or worse.

But these are not normal circumstances, and, additionally, I think this
would be a tactical error.  Howard Dean, in speaking of the protests,
yesterday remarked that these there not the "typical protesters" - that we
were seeing the first strike of a globalized youth, more interested in
rights than parties or national boundaries - and worried that the
Democratic Party would be unable to "capture them."  Let him worry.  Their
ideals are more aligned with those of the Libertarian Party than with those
of any other.  Mr. Somes and Mr. Sharpe pointed out that one could easily
digest Trump's core message - "Make America Great Again," and that of Mrs.
Clinton, while ours was murkier, involved multiple layers of meaning, and,
as expressed by our ticket, was unclear and seemed to consist of a lot of
"well, I'd think about it."  What is a rallying point for libertarianism
that focuses on what the voter gets, not what we get?  Here's one -* "Break
the bonds."* * We want to break the bonds of the oppressed.  We want to
break the chains that hold back the human imagination and prosperity - the
very chains that bind the hands of the weakest.*  This we share with the
protesters and attorneys who came out, heroically, to fight for the right
of human movement, to fight for due process - and yet, we now are discussed
turning to those protesters and saying "yes, well, that's all nice, but we
care more about the oppressed in Armani suits."

Cutting regulations can be done in a manner that greatly eases the burden
on the most burdened.  It can be, but nothing in the EO directs that this
be done.  It would be fully in compliance with such an EO to increase the
burden on small businesses (true small businesses, even, the home-grown
kind) while, twice as quickly, reducing it on big business, or even
removing valuable protections.  This is the structural problem - everything
is a regulation now, and so getting rid of regulations can be done in a
manner that enhances, or that fails to enhance, or that destroys, freedom.
We should, I believe, push for a return to a system in which Congress
legislates with accountability, and an end to a system that allows
unelected agencies and one man such extraordinary power over the rules
which govern us.  We should not, in my view, celebrate the inappropriate
power distribution that allows the President to make such orders.

Finally, what does such praise hope to accomplish?  Perhaps to encourage
more of the same?  I submit that this is an unlikely result.  To allow
conservatives unhappy with Trump to consider and vote for us?  A good goal
- but one that, I think, will be best accomplished by remaining the
opposition through the Trump administration unless the tone is changed
overall.  If we want to attract anti-Trump Republicans, we will do so by
standing firm for markets, not by saying nice things about Trump.  I see
nothing, tactically, to be gained by nice words for Trump, and plenty to be
lost by those who see such messages and say, with disappointment, that we,
who stood so strongly just days ago, can be so easily bought off.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170131/37753599/attachment-0002.html>