Originally posted from 11-07-04 to 11-14-04
Positively Negative
by Lady Liberty

In the presidential election just past, voter turnout hovered around 60%. That was, say those who should know, the highest voter turn-out America has seen since the 1968 presidential elections. Unfortunately, Libertarians still only garnered about the same number of votes as they did in the 2000 election. Libertarians were the only major party advocating a true adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights—and for the record, the other third parties didn't fare well this year, either.

Along with good voter turn-out, the Libertarian party had an excellent candidate this time around in the person of Michael Badnarik. (If you don't know a lot about Mr. Badnarik, you're missing out. Keep your eyes and ears open for news on the 2008 election, and let's hope he decides to run again.) So what happened?

After some reflection on those who won and who almost won, I think I have an answer: Libertarianism, at least as presented by Michael Badnarik, is rational. Voters this year (don't be offended ; you're probably an exception to the rule) weren't.

Voters in 2004 were highly motivated not to cast their ballot for a man they hoped would win, but rather against a man they hoped wouldn't. John F. Kerry, voters were told, would institute socialized medicine and raise taxes. George W. Bush, said the opposing campaign, would reinstate the draft and was systematically destroying the economy by exporting jobs. Although one poll reported by CNN the day after the elections purported to show that fully 70% of those who voted for John Kerry didn't really like him, they voted for him anyway because they didn't want Bush to win. And of those who voted for George W. Bush—including a disheartening number of third party members—many claimed they were doing whatever they could to keep Kerry out of office.

What do we learn from this? Well, although mudslinging still seems to alienate many voters, negativity doesn't necessarily do so. If it makes people worry or even makes them a little afraid, that may be enough to swing just that many more votes your way. So negativity properly channelled (no mud, lots of fear) is a tremendously powerful force. Logic in the face of such strong emotion is simply ignored, misunderstood, or comes in a distant second or thid place to some perceived clear and present danger.

That's why I've decided that when I discuss politics with party-line Democrats and Republicans in the future, I'm not going to make any attempt to appeal to their minds with rational arguments and facts. Instead, I'm going to scare them or disgust them. Oh, there's no need to lie. I'm just going to come at the truth from another direction and in a different way. Consider:

Appeals that the USA PATRIOT Act damages civil liberties have largely fallen on deaf ears. Even many of those who agree that freedoms are harmed under the Act are willing to accept the loss of liberty if they're safer as a result. But what if we change our tack? Instead of telling people the PATRIOT Act curtails freedom, why not hit them with the fact that it won't keep them safe?

There's no argument that the PATRIOT Act has been successful in nabbing a few people who have committed crimes unrelated to terrorism— something, by the way, the Department of Justice promised it would not use the PATRIOT Act to do—but where are the terrorists it's caught? And what about those it's mistakenly fingered, including an Oregon lawyer and an Idaho grad student? Meanwhile, our borders—viewed by many experts as a significant danger where terrorism is concerned—remain ridiculously porous, and the PATRIOT Act does nothing to address that genuinely frightening fact.

Railing against invasive airport security from a privacy and/or Fourth Amendment standpoint hasn't changed airport procedures appreciably. Most passengers seem content to be searched, even by hand, if it means their flight will be terrorist-free. So how about if we remind them that repeated tests of security procedures have resulted in the repeated success of people getting prohibited weapons or other materials on board? Draconian security is, as far as I'm concerned, still inexcusable. But draconian security that doesn't work is even worse.

Two years after 9/11, Boston's Logan International Airport—the departure point for three of the hijacked planes—still had such poor security that weapons easily passed through when officials conducted tests. After assurances the government would do better, more testing just last month showed that there are still major security problems at our airports. And matching checked bags to passengers as is now required to help ensure bombs aren't stowed aboard is rendered meaningless by suicide bombers who fully intend to die when the plane explodes.

The MATRIX database has been pooh-poohed by many as being a negligible risk to their privacy (although privacy advocates are almost universally opposed to the program). People say that the information is out there anyway, so what difference does it make if the government collects it? Well, the problem is that the errors already out there in various and sundry databases containing our personal information will be compounded by the merger and, of course, made even more difficult to correct. But that logical argument contains much less urgency then pointing out that a recent study showed fully 79% of credit reports had errors on them, and that 25% had errors so serious that people could be denied credit or jobs over them.

Since everyone should order their own credit report once a year anyway as a prophylactic measure against identity theft, suggest that people order theirs and then point and laugh as they try to get errors corrected. Don't let them see you do it, though, because at the height of their frustration you'll pounce on them again regarding MATRIX.

The truth of the matter is that logical, thinking citizens will always gather the facts, review them, and make a decision based on what they believe is the right thing to do. Almost universally, the truly informed and responsible citizen will decide in favor of freedom, at least assuming he or she isn't been scared out of rationality. So my suggestion to Michael Badnarik, should he choose to run again, is this (the advice, by the way, holds true for the rest of us in our own smaller venues and causes, too):

Forget sensibility. Too many voters you need to reach have become largely insensible. That's not because they're stupid (well, okay, in a few cases it is, but those are people who will always vote for Ted Kennedy no matter what anyone else says or does). No, it's because they've been browbeaten into a party line, or because they've been told scary things so many times they've become afraid on an almost daily basis. Don't worry about logic. You've already got many of the logical voters behind you. Instead, step up to that microphone and scare 'em. Scare 'em good!

Scare tactics worked for George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, didn't they? And neither of them (just ask the opposition!) were particularly good candidates. There's no reason the same tactics can't work for you. After all, there's no shortage of really scary stuff to talk about, thanks to George W. Bush, John F. Kerry, and the far too many currently in government who are just like them.

Originally posted from 10-24-04 to 10-31-04
Here and Now
by Lady Liberty

There's nothing like death to bring home the truth behind some old sayings. A few days ago, I attended a memorial service for the daughter of an acquaintance of mine. She was just 27, dead as the result of a car crash. Her parents buried her on what would have been her 28th birthday.

As I waited for the service to begin, this young woman's sudden death reminded me that we might all be best served to remember that we should "seize the day" given that any one of us could be "here today, gone tomorrow." And that, in turn, reminded me of something even more important: Today is all any of us have got. Regardless of the number of todays each of us is given, tomorrow never comes.

Of course, it's impossible not to look to the future in some ways. There are things that simply cannot be managed day-to-day. One of those things involves the selection of those who will be charged with the administration of a country. Even so, there are important factors to think about when considering "this election" versus "the next election."

There are any number of independent voters who are largely ambivalent toward this year's major party candidates. Yet about half are lining up in Kerry's camp, and most of the rest are standing sturdily behind Dubya. Even those who are admitted Democrat or Republican voters aren't thrilled about their party's candidates this year. But the money keeps pouring into the campaigns, the signs continue to go up, and myriad volunteers are still calling around and asking for votes. Why?

Those who previously backed a third party candidate be he Michael Badnarik or Michael Peroutka, David Cobb or Ralph Nader, have also started to talk—again, without enthusiasm—of voting for John Kerry or George W. Bush. Why?

In almost every case, the classic "lesser evil" explanation crops up more often than not.

John Kerry will sell us out to the United Nations. He'll lose the War on Terrorism. He'll raise taxes. We'll go broke over his entitlement programs. He'll take our guns away! We must keep George W. Bush in the White House if we wish to preserve America and her interests.

George W. Bush is stuck in the quagmire of Iraq. He's taking our civil liberties away from us in the name of the War on Terrorism. His loyalties are entangled with "big oil," not with the good of the country. We must get George W. Bush out of the White House if we wish to preserve American freedom, even if it means we have to put John Kerry there for a little while! (Bizarrely enough, even many Democrats acknowledge a Kerry presidency likely wouldn't be good. But, they say, "Anybody but Bush!)

Third party voters say that this year they're voting for John Kerry or George W. Bush because George W. Bush or John Kerry would be the worst possible thing that could happen to us in this country. They say that they'll vote their conscience in the next election, but that this time around they have to vote for one of the major party candidates. They don't have the statistical room, they say, to vote for their candidate. Besides, they'll tell you, they don't want to "waste" their vote.

Many voters from all parties have, at one time or another, used the same arguments. But none of them have grasped one salient fact: like "tomorrow," the "next election" never comes. All we've got is today and this election.

I understand "the lesser evil" argument. I'm just not so sure it should apply to people of conscience. I suppose if there were only two choices and you had to pick one of those two no matter how you felt about either of them, then you'd have to vote for the evil you considered to be the least. But there aren't only two choices. In almost every state, there are at least three. In some, there are significantly more than that. The only barrier to you choosing a greater good rather than a lesser evil involves the constraints you've placed on yourself.

I also understand the idea of the "wasted" vote. But consider for a moment those who live in states where the presidential balloting is a foregone conclusion. For example, unless hell freezes over, California will go to John Kerry (in fact, given the California mentality, I suspect California will go to John Kerry even if hell posts record low temperatures on November 2). Now, if you're a Californian who genuinely thinks George W. Bush is the best candidate for president, then vote for him. But if you prefer Michael Badnarik, then why wouldn't you vote your conscience? It's not like you doing so will swing the electoral votes over to the "other guy" there!

To vote for George W. Bush when you don't care for him and you already know he's going to lose in your state is a truly wasted vote. At least a vote for Michael Badnarik there will send a message at the same time it will let you get a good night's sleep with a clear conscience on Tuesday night! Messages and the knowledge you did the right thing aren't indicative of a waste, are they?

In fact, messages and doing the right thing are so important to me that I'm voting for Michael Badnarik myself. And I'll tell you right now: I live in one of the so-called "battleground states." Every individual vote cast for either Kerry or Bush will likely matter in my state. And you know what? I'm still voting for Michael Badnarik. I'm voting for him not because I think he'll win, but because I think he should win. Isn't that why we accept the responsibility of voting? Surely we don't engage in the election process just to vote for the politicians we think are the least corrupt or who we can almost stand to have in office!

Here's something else to think about: So many say they're worried about the greater and lesser evils. Well, how about the silver lining to all those clouds of evil? If you're voting for George W. Bush solely so John Kerry won't win, consider the bonus to us all if Kerry does take the presidency: no more John Ashcroft! And if you're voting for John Kerry just to get George W. Bush out of the White House, imagine if you will the delight of all on Wednesday morning when we discover a Bush win means that our First Lady won't be Theresa after all!

The bottom line is that our founders gave us a Republic—if, as Benjamin Franklin said, we can keep it. If we do want to keep it, we need to start voting as the founders knew we must. That means with some knowledge of the candidates and issues. It means with an even-handed dose of pragmatism seasoned by optimism. It means voting according to our conscience rather than as a result of scare tactics or cynical rationales. And it means doing so not in the "next" election, but in this election, and in every election. After all, we should none of us "put off 'til tomorrow what you can do today."

A final note to those of you who don't vote based on principles you hold against voting: I respect your views and admire your decision to adhere to them. I believe that if all of those who do vote would stick to their principles as you do to yours, we'd likely see an improvement in the quality of candidates and officeholders over time, and we'd certainly see more legitimate election results almost immediately.

Originally posted from 09-19-04 to 09-26-04
If You Can't Say Anything Nice...
by Lady Liberty

If your mother is anything like mine, you heard it more than a few times growing up: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." For gossip-loving teenagers and often appallingly cruel grade-schoolers, those words are good advice. But as adults we grow to recognize that sometimes it's necessary to say even not-so-nice things. That doesn't mean, however, that we need to say those things as if we were the immature and small-minded children we used to be.

Politics usually isn't very pretty. It follows that political speech is frequently ugly. Accusations fly much as does the odiferous substance of another famous saying, and that means that some of the stuff typically sticks to the people throwing it as much as to the person or party at which it is aimed. It's probably true that whoever gets buried the deepest will lose in the end. Yet at the same time, it's likely also the primary reason so many of us hold our noses when we vote no matter the candidate we choose.

Career politicians and their highly paid campaign staff aren't likely to change anytime soon. As much as we lament dirty politics and say we wish races were run based on qualifications rather than accusations of less-than-exemplary actions that could prove to be disqualifications, dirty politics has one single factor in its favor: it works. Still, if a candidate could stay cleaner by virtue of better behavior, at least some of the efforts of the opposing side could be mitigated. At worst, that candidate would come across as being more level-headed, and rationale will always trump rhetoric in the minds of voters who will spare even a moment's thought to place fact above affiliation (never mind for the moment that too many voters don't bother to think at all).

The same holds true of political campaign supporters. All too often, informal debates between adherents turn ugly and, well, childish. "Vote for my candidate because..." is a springboard for discussion and discovery for both sides even if no one is convinced to change his mind. "Vote for my candidate or you're stupid!" is a call to arms. Rational arguments will, it can be hoped, at least provoke pertinent responses. Name calling, on the other hand, means that you either don't know any good arguments in favor of your stance, or that you're too unstable to think of any at the moment. Neither speaks well of you or, by association deserved or undeserved, your candidate or your cause.

Michael Moore is, as much as it pains me to say so, a talented filmmaker. It's impossible for me to appreciate his talent, however, because he's so busy using it to sling lies about his own least favored candidate. I don't argue that there's much that can be said against President George W. Bush and his policies, foreign and domestic. In fact, in some ways, that makes what Moore is doing worse. Given that there are some very legitimate criticisms and concerns that could be—and should be—expressed in connection with the Bush administration, it seems a shame that Moore has instead wasted the time, money, and incessant vocalizations on so many things so easily disproved. Still, you'll recall I acknowledge that dirty politics works. And "Fahrenheit 9/11" has collected an extraordinarily healthy profit even as Moore's biggest lie—calling a work that is largely fiction a documentary—is being swallowed by a distressingly large population.

For those who bother to ask a few questions or to look beyond the tricks of the trade of the silver screen, it's easy enough to see the fakery involved and the outright unreasoning hatred that motivates it. Once you see clearly, do you believe that John Kerry is the supremely better presidential candidate? Do you buy into every criticism of George W. Bush the movie makes? Or do you take many of the movie's "facts" with a very large grain of salt, and look at Michael Moore as being the unethical propagandist that he is? And doesn't that knowledge make you wonder about Mr. Moore's film as a whole, thus tarnishing his efforts even in the (unlikely, unfortunately) event he's telling you the truth?

Michael Moore is also an ideal example of how the opposite side of the issue shoots itself in the foot when it could be taking advantage of an overwhelming argument in its own favor. After all, it would seem to me that Moore's blatant disregard for any semblence of truth in his so-called documentary, and the relatively easily found proof of that contention, is more than adequate to condemn him and, by default, the validity of his viewpoint. Yet in the vast majority of editorials or complaints I've seen concerning Mr. Moore, the writer has seen fit to insult his weight, his hygiene, and/or his personality. Whether true or untrue, what do these petty snipes have to do with the fabrications in his film? How does calling Mr. Moore a pig persuade even the most lukewarm of his fans that an opposing opinion is worthy of even casual consideration?

The same general logic is true for those of us less famous than Mr. Moore. If we want others to consider our position or to think about supporting our chosen candidate, then we need to be able to tell others why that candidate has earned our support and why they might want to consider voting for our man, too. For example, I've made it clear that I endorse Libertarian Michael Badnarik for president. I promote his campaign because he's willing to make good on an oath to uphold the Constitution, and because he believes that government has no constitutional—or moral—right to be involved in so much of our day-to-day and personal business. He's in favor of abolishing many taxes, of the absolute right to self defense, and of returning the responsibility of our own lives to us. That's almost certainly a more compelling argument for you to learn more about Mr. Badnarik than if I'd said, say, "Vote for Michael Badnarik because Ralph Nader is an idiot!" or "Vote for Michael Badnarik because George W. Bush and John Kerry are evil!" And that's true whether or not I personally think Ralph Nader actually is an idiot, or the Republican and Democrat candidates are separately or collectively the Antichrist.

This past week, I happened to read a very well-articulated letter intended to argue in favor of more equitable media coverage for all of the major presidential candidates rather than just the "big two." The writer referenced Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Ralph Nader, and Michael Peroutka with respect, and gave no indication whatsoever as to which candidate he might personally favor. But all of the logic of his position was undone when, in the closing paragraph, he called George W. Bush and John Kerry disparaging names.

Don't misunderstand my own position in this matter. I agreed with that part of the letter as much as I agreed with the rest of it, which is to say completely. But imagine if you were on the receiving end of such a missive and, despite favoring one of the "big two" yourself, you were actually beginning to be just the smallest bit swayed by the calm, cool, and utterly rational points being made. Then suddenly your own favored candidate is called a nasty name. Your first reaction is to leap to your candidate's defense. Your second, and probably final, reaction is to ignore the letter in its entirety because to do otherwise just makes you waste precious time wanting to act on your first reaction. So how, pray tell, has your descent into name-calling—as well deserved as it might be—helped your cause?

It's crucial that we do speak up when we see political wrongdoing. It's important that we bring to light problems with candidates that could make them singularly unsuited to hold public office. And it's our unalienable right to share our opinion as far and wide as we desire. That's not only part and parcel of the political process, but also one of our responsibilities as citizens. While how you choose to wage your argument isn't as important as whether you're right or wrong, it can never-the-less prove all the difference between winning or losing the respect your position (I would hope) deserves.

The fact is that it really isn't a matter of saying nothing at all if we can't say anything nice, but rather taking the time to say those not-so-nice things nicely, or at least with logic and without the unnecessary baiting of those who disagree. Mom would understand and appreciate the difference. And more importantly for the sake of political activism, so will the others with whom you're communicating.

Originally posted from 09-12-04 to 09-19-04
EXCLUSIVE!
Lady Liberty Interviews Michael Badnarik,
2004 Libertarian Candidate for President

On September 11, 2004, Lady Liberty was in attendance at the 2004 National Property Rights Conference where she spoke on Internet Activism. Libertarian candidate for President Michael Badnarik was a featured general session speaker at that same event. Lady Liberty was privileged to have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Badnarik one on one during the Conference.

It should be noted that Mr. Badnarik is a very personable man and a dynamic live speaker. After having enjoyed the speech and the conversation afterward, Lady Liberty is entirely convinced that her earlier decision to endorse Mr. Badnarik for the presidency was, without reservation, the right choice.

Lady Liberty firmly believes that with adequate (read "fair") media coverage, Mr. Badnarik would also be "the right choice" for hundreds of thousands of those voters who've not yet had the pleasure of learning that there is one candidate who believes in restoring and protecting their liberties. Michael Badnarik is currently polling in the single digits. But 80% of Americans have never even heard of him. If he's showing on the polls and only 20% even know who he is, imagine what would happen to those numbers if 50% of voters knew of him and his positions. Or 75%. Or more!

Want to see a third party win the presidency? Spread the word about this campaign and this candidate. Michael Badnarik's web site is found at www.badnarik.org. Help to fund the campaign effort if you can; spread the word regardless. Take a look at what Mr. Badnarik had to say when he sat down with Lady Liberty the night of September 11, and see if you don't agree that his candidacy is worth your strongest possible support:

Lady Liberty: Today is 9/11. Everyone agrees the attacks three years ago were tragic, but there's been little agreement on anything since then. If you'd been president when the attacks occurred, how would you have prosecuted the War on Terror?

Michael Badnarik: Well, if 9/11 happened today, it's a crime, it's an international murder. It's a mass murder, not a war. And you prosecute it like any other crime. You find the evidence, you figure out who the perpetrators of the crime are, and then you do what's necessary to bring them to justice. To the best of my knowledge, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the ones that brought the buildings down. At least that's the information that I have given what they broadcast on television. And so we have every justification to go after those people who destroyed the buildings.

We do not have the authority to transfer that aggression to another group, and we've sent 150,000 troops to Iraq which, you know, basically didn't attack us; they have no direct connection to September 11 to the best of my knowledge. If there is any evidence, we haven't been presented with it. And we are basically prosecuting a war in the wrong area. Again, it was an international crime, it was a murder, but I don't think that it relates to war per se.

LL: We're already in the midst of what many believe to be an illegal situation, and it's one that you didn't start. But assuming you take office in January, how would you clean it up?

MB: Well, over 50% of the people in the United States recognize that going to Iraq was a mistake; staying in Iraq compounds that mistake; and even George Bush admitted accidentally during his acceptance speech at the Republican convention that we can't win that war. And so it's a political tar baby. We can't win. 92% of the people in Iraq don't like us. They consider us occupiers instead of liberators. We're not going to change their minds by bombing their buildings and killing innocent civilians. We're not going to endear ourselves to them. The only rational solution is to admit our mistake and start bringing our sons and daughters home as safely and as quickly as possible.

LL: But people will say that Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy and he was doing really bad things. He probably would have been a danger to us sooner or later anyway. So does it really matter that there was a mistake about weapons of mass destruction? Isn't this kind of nipping things in the bud, so to speak?

MB: You are innocent until proven guilty. You don't have the authority to go and lock somebody up in jail because maybe they're going to commit murder or maybe they're going to rob a bank. Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy, but we were giving him money and ammunition years ago. We raised Saddam Hussein to power. The same thing was true of Osama bin Laden. You know, they would never have been as powerful as they became without American money and munitions, so if we are truly going to fight terrorism, maybe we could avoid creating terrorism in the first place.

LL: But before you can address such things, you have to be elected to office. And there've recently been some ballot problems for your campaign in New Hampshire and Ohio. Rumors on the Internet suggest that, much as Republicans have worked in some places to get Ralph Nader on the ballot in the hopes of taking votes from John Kerry, they may have worked in other places to keep you off the ballot to stop you from hurting George W. Bush. Have you heard these rumors? And what are your thoughts on these ballot problems?

MB: I have not heard anything about it, and I have not heard anything that might make me think it was credible. The situation in New Hampshire is apparently an oversight. The signatures didn't get submitted before the deadline. I don't know what the circumstances were or are, and I'm not going to rush to judgment without knowing any information. We are working as hard as we can and in as many states as we can to get the Libertarian message out, and there will always be some setbacks. But we certainly aren't going to stop. You know, George Washington lost most of the battles during the American Revolution, but they certainly didn't give up. I think that Libertarians should continue to persevere just the way the Founding Fathers did.

LL: Politics seems so dirty, and contrary to popular opinion, it's been that way for many, many years. Is there any way in your mind to ever really clean it up?

MB: One of the best ways to clean up politics is to enforce Constitutional limitations on government, and take away the power that they have granted to themselves. When members of Congress are limited to the Constitution, they have limited power and there's nothing for large corporations to bribe them for. However, we the people ordain and establish the Constitution. We the people created our government. And we the people are responsible for it. If we the people don't study the Constitution, understand the difference between rights and privileges, and vote for candidates that are honest and actually protect our rights, then basically we get the government that we deserve.

LL: Most people, if you ask them, will tell you candidly they do think that most politicians lie, that most politicians can't be trusted—and yet time after time they keep voting for professional politicians. They may indeed deserve what they get when they do that, but why do you think they do keep voting for the same politicians over and over again?

MB: For a number of reasons. Some people vote for politicians because government offers them benefits, the whole welfare state. You're going to get a politician who's going to give you tax credits, or help fund education, or do things that you feel are beneficial. And people vote for that because they overlook the fact that whenever government gives you something, it has to take it from someone else. I think if everybody understood that welfare is theft, and that you were getting these benefits at someone else's expense, I think that would be radically reduced. Even if you were really, really hungry, and you watched me take a sandwich away from a child in order to give it to you, I find it difficult to believe that many people would be able to eat that sandwich knowing it had been taken from a child.

LL: You mentioned that, for us to be responsible for our own government, we need to learn and study the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Far too many people, however, don't, and part of their lack of knowledge goes back to some failure to educate in the school systems. Why do you think there's so little emphasis today in schools on the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

MB: Well, the government has more power than it deserves. It has more power than the Constitution enumerates for it. And the only way that they can continue absorbing power and assuming power is to have an electorate that doesn't understand what the basics are. And so I personally suspect there's some motivation to keep that information out of schools so that they can continue to what they choose to do. [Congressman] Ron Paul (R-TX) has periodically proposed that anytime Congress writes a new law, they have to identify the clause in the Constitution which authorizes them to do whatever the law proposes. And presumably one of the members of Congress has said, "Well, we can't do that! If we followed the Constitution, then we'd never make any laws!"

LL: I know you teach some adult Constitution courses...

MB: They're for people of intellect age. I mean, 14, 15 and above. I've had some younger children, but it is intended primarily for high school and above.

LL: Okay, so we take care of the remedial education with classes like the ones that you offer. How do we fix the underlying problem of the schools—and not just in relation to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but in general?

MB: The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and it's also terribly inefficient. In 1953, we developed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at a point in time when American students were number one in math and science. We now spend over ten times as much per student, and American students are 29th in math and science. So even if the Department of Education were constitutional, we ought to eliminate that department because our children are getting dumber instead of smarter. Not too long ago, we modified the way we score SAT tests because the scores were dropping by clear percentages. They set a new median, so basically what we did was set the bar lower so more people could appear to pass the test. Just because you make the test easier doesn't mean that people are getting smarter.

LL: In his book Hologram of Liberty, author Boston T. Party suggests that the Constitution was written intentionally in such a way that today's abuses are possible. Do you subscribe to that theory? What do you think?

MB: I read the book, and I think that the argument is plausible. There's no way for us to know precisely what the Founding Fathers intended, but the important thing is that that was then, this is now. This is 2004. We are more enlightened. We have the benefit of hindsight. And we should understand that private property rights are the basis of that document, and anything that does not conform with that document should be amended.

In my class, we discuss the definition of "constitutional." And the first definition that most people propose is "something that is written in the Constitution." So then I point to Article I Section 9, Clause 1 which says that Congress is forbidden from making slavery illegal until after 1808. So up until that year, slavery was constitutional by definition. We realize now that that's a horrendous idea, and it establishes the fact that the Constitution is flawed and can be flawed in various different ways. So if we are going to fix the Constitution and prevent it from becoming more flawed than it is, we have to have a different definition of what is or is not constitutional just because it happens to be a part of that text.

I propose that private property rights are the definition of what is or is not constitutional. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect your life, your liberty, and your property. And when you understand that, it's easy to read the Constitution without it being ambiguous, and it's fairly easy to identify clauses in the Constitution that are either in contrast to that or could be misinterpreted in such a way so that they would be in conflict with private property.

LL: You mention private property. When most people think of those words, they assume it means their homes and their land. But you define private property far more broadly than that, don't you?

MB: Yes, primarily your own body. The idea that you own your own body is taken for granted now. If you don't own your body, then you're a slave. That's precisely the argument that we were using during the early part of this country. Blacks were not people; they were considered property. Over the course of 200 years or more, we realized it's inappropriate to own another human. However, the idea that you own your own body is not universal. There are places around the world [like] the Middle East where women do not own their body and they are considered property. There are places around the world where children are sold into slavery. So the idea that you own your own body is not only not universal, but it was also not an assumption here in the United States.

LL: I know you're a member of the Free State Project, and that you're aware of similar efforts such as Free State Wyoming and the Free West Alliance. Do you think these projects are actually feasible? Do you think their stated missions can ever really be accomplished?

MB: I think that they are feasible if the people who are organizing can continue to generate an interest, and if the people support it. Was it feasible for George Washington and 2000 regular troops and a handful of militia to defeat the most powerful military force in the world, King George's army? At that point in our history, I'm sure that there were people saying, "You don't have a snowball's chance! Why are you bothering to fight against insurmountable odds?"

Well, liberty and the desire to make your own decisions is an incredible force. And it drives people to do things that might be perceived as impossible. So is it possible for people to move to New Hampshire, or move to Wyoming, and establish a pattern of freedom and liberty that catches on and spreads to the other 50 states? Absolutely. Will it happen? Well, all I know is that I have dedicated the rest of my life to fighting for liberty because I have no more important task than that.

LL: Whatever else, these projects do seem to be kind of a grand gesture. On the one hand, they're telling the government that some of us are disappointed enough, or disgusted enough, to start taking real and significant steps to restore our liberty. On the other hand, they're showing other citizens that not everyone has lost hope, and that some people are still fighting for freedom. So just as a concept, what do you think of people packing up everything and going somewhere with that one goal in mind?

MB: They did that to come to the United States. People packed up everything they had to go to the new land to have their religious freedom. That happens continuously. During the late 1800's and early 1900's, we literally had millions of immigrants coming from Europe basically with the clothes on their back. Parents would put their children on a boat and kiss them good-bye knowing that they'd never see them again. How bad do things have to be in your own country where you send your own children away? And the whole idea was to come to the United States to achieve the American dream.

LL: Have you ever read the book Hope (written by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope is a novel about a presidential candidate by the name of Alexander Hope whose sole campaign promise is to ensure that everything he does as president is within the parameters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights)?

MB: I have read the book Hope.

LL: Are you aware, then, that there are people comparing you with Alexander Hope?

MB: I'm flattered! I hope that I can maintain the adherence to principles that Alexander Hope did in the book. That's certainly my intention. The only thing that concerns me is that, as Alexander Hope got more and more successful, there was an assassination attempt on his life. So I hope that I'm wearing my bulletproof vest by then!

LL: Mathematically, you could win the presidency. But considering probability, the likelihood is that you won't. So why are you doing this? Why are you putting yourself through this incredible effort and working so hard?

MB: Because it's the right thing to do. I can't vote for George Bush or John Kerry and respect myself in the morning. Democrats and Republicans don't respect the Constitution; it's doubtful that they've even read the Constitution. Members of Congress are continuing to usurp power that we the people never delegated them. The only other alternative is to sit back and let the situation get worse. And I don't have the courage to do that. Again, it's the right thing to do. If I can make a difference, the sooner I start, the harder I work, the greater a difference I can make.

LL: Do you believe a third party candidate will ever win a presidential election?

MB: Yes.

LL: How long might it be before that happens? And how bad will it have to get before people that are diehard party line voters understand that there's a real choice available for them?

MB: I think that people are beginning to understand there's a choice. Most of the people in 2000 voted for the lesser of two evils. And after four years of the current administration, they're beginning to regret that type of a strategy. During the last two years that I've been campaigning, I've had Democrats and Republicans come up to me declaring that they're disenchanted with their own party—that their politicians make all the right promises during the campaign, but then they just get elected, raise taxes, pass unconstitutional laws—and they're disgusted.

One example is that I walked into an elevator in jeans and a casual shirt. There were five or six people on the elevator, and one man noticed my "Badnarik for President" shirt. And he said, "Gosh, I've never met this guy, never heard of this guy." So I introduced myself, and said, "Hi, I'm running for President of the United States." Everybody on that elevator indicated they were voting for me simply because I wasn't George Bush and I wasn't John Kerry. Now, that's a pretty flimsy reason to vote for somebody. But I think it's indicative of how far our political system has fallen, and how desperate people are for another choice.

My only problem is getting media attention. If I can have a little bit of advertising and get my name and the Libertarian Party message out, I think that we would do incredibly well. Right now, we're running at about 8% in the polls. If we can get to 15%—the arbitrary 15% that we're supposed to have—I can get into the presidential debates. And if I can get into the debate, there is no doubt that I will win that debate. And if I win the presidential debate, there's no telling how much of a vote I can get. I may not win the White House, but I can change the course of American politics forever.

Lady Liberty is humbled by Michael Badnarik's obvious dedication to and love for liberty, and is grateful for his kindness in giving this interview. She extends her best wishes and greatest hopes to him and his campaign. She also wishes to acknowledge the incredibly hard work of Mr. Badnarik's aid, Jon—who kindly facilitated this interview even as he was busy with many, many other things—and to thank Robert Butler, the Executive Director of the Ohio Libertarian Party, for his help and encouragement.

Originally posted from 09-05-04 to 09-12-04
Pollyanna Politics
by Lady Liberty

I'm not a signed member of any official political party. I do, however happen to be acquainted with a number of local Republicans, and so it was that I received an invitation to an event celebrating the Party's nomination of George W. Bush as its official presidential candidate. Not one to turn down the chance to chat with politicians and candidates in a casual setting, I accepted the invite. Once there, I stood in the background with a cookie—and a large grain of salt. I listened to the speeches and saw the room respond with cheers and applause, much the same way the audience in Madison Square Garden was behaving during its own program. And that night I saw it more clearly then than ever before: this was Pollyanna politics in action.

For those of you who don't know, Pollyanna was the young heroine of a series of early 20th century novels who became even better known to a broader audience when Disney chose to make the story into a movie in the early 1960's. Pollyanna appealed especially to children because she was an incurable optimist. No matter how bad things seemed, she perpetually saw the bright side. Her attitude proved infectious, and other characters soon learned something from the ever-hopeful girl. Of course, this being fiction, her optimism usually won the day, proving to one and all that a positive attitude is the tack to take. Unfortunately, such cannot always be said to be the case in real life. The case in point brings us full circle back to politics and to political rallies.

Just as the fictitious Pollyanna always found something to be glad about in every situation, it seems that political party members are bound and determined to see only those things that make them glad. As one speaker after another took the podium in New York for the Republican National Convention, local politicians and candidates stepped forward in the smaller local venue. To a man—and woman—they spoke not only of their own race, but also exhorted those in attendance to be sure to vote in such a way that all of the Republican candidates would win. But that mindset utterly ignored some facts I believe are germane to voters of all political persuasions, and which could result in some problems across the board.

For example, a couple of the candidates took the opportunity to reiterate promises that, if elected, they'd do everything they could to see to it that their official business and the records generated by it was available to everyone via the Internet. As the audience dutifully applauded, I was silent. So-called public records are a prime source of information for identity thieves and other criminals, and the fact that putting such records on the Internet makes them so widely accessible has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Even if the town, county, or state wins such cases, the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to defend the suits will involve substantial amounts of money. And whether the government entity wins or loses, those named in such records are always victimized, and the taxpayers are always the ones who have to pay the bill. But in making their promises, these candidates have never addressed whether or not certain information (such as financial data in the case of divorce records, for example) will be redacted before being posted in the Internet for one and all to see, nor have they discussed the potential legal battles that will likely ensue.

One candidate promised that, if elected, he'd do all that he could to bring more government spending to the area. People cheered. Yet when more government funding—funding that, by definition, consists of taxpayer dollars—comes here, less of it can go elsewhere. And everywhere, taxpayers are either getting more or less than they've provided accordingly. In a system many have declared inherently unfair with good reason, rather than offering alternatives, the candidate apparently believes that taking the most advantage possible of an unfair system is the best way to go. (Don't misunderstand my stance against this socialistic wealth redistribution to in any way mitigate my opposition to the vast majority of taxes, period.)

A man running for a court vacancy waved to everyone and asked us all to vote for him, but said little else; in a private conversation I had with him later, he said he was really unable to comment on existing courts, judges, or the judicial system in general. If that's the case, how, pray tell, do I know whether he's a good candidate or not? Am I to place my vote solely because he's the party's candidate in that particular election? Apparently, yes, I am.

Another candidate, though neither the first nor the last to speak that evening, summed the mindset up nicely when he said: "Our number one priority is to get President Bush re-elected. And then we must vote to get our entire slate of candidates here elected." Odd. I thought I was supposed to be voting for the best candidate. And although I like some of these candidates fine (the speaker in this case included), I don't think that others of them are the best man (or woman) for the job. I find it disturbing that the majority of the people in the room that night apparently didn't really think much about what they thought. They'll just vote according to the party line.

And that's where Pollyanna comes in. All too often, important issues and problems are either ignored, hidden until later, or swept under the rug entirely. The best face is put on every possible situation. This has rarely been more obvious than in the case of national politics right now.

John Kerry obviously has some serious character and professional flaws to be addressed. Was his behavior in Vietnam as cowardly and self-serving as some allege? The only certainty is that he had the lack of respect for his own medals to pretend to destroy them (he threw only the ribbons away, and has said that his gesture was "symbolic" though he claimed for years it was his actual medals he tossed). Is he responsible enough to his constituents to warrant letting him represent even more of us (he's been a no-show at a huge percentage of Senate votes, including those involving intelligence matters)? But Democrats don't want to address those serious questions. Instead, they're busy accusing George W. Bush of having a 527 group "do his dirty work" for him while acclaiming their own candidate as a great man.

George W. Bush isn't without fault, either. He blatantly promised some things but did the opposite (signing the McCain-Feingold bill into Campaign Finance Reform law, and his abandonment of his pro-Second Amendment first campaign stance are among matters of real concern). Though his quick and decisive actions in Afghanistan in the pursuit of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden have been largely hailed, he's come under fire (well deserved, in my opinion) for the subsequent attack on Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power there. But Republicans don't want to talk about those things in depth or how the president himself was the primary mover behind each. Instead, they want everybody to know how a John Kerry presidency would be disastrous for America and that their own candidate is a patriotic and presidential man.

The thing is that both parties are both right and wrong. No man—no, not even John Kerry or George W. Bush—is all bad. But neither is all good, either. Both parties seem to recognize that's the case against their opposite number, but neither is willing to talk about obvious shortcomings in their own man and how such might be addressed. In fact, in many cases, neither party is inclined to admit the shortcomings in their own candidate even exist. Like Pollyanna, they're just glad that John Kerry says he cares about old people and the poor, or that George W. Bush is promising to do his utmost to keep us all safe from any more terror attacks. Wouldn't both men be better candidates in the end if they came clean about certain matters and told all of us how they've learned from past mistakes, or how such problems could be fixed or eliminated in the future? Or are both men such poor candidates that admitting as much would be tantamount to confessing that neither is qualified, and that the entire political system is broken and cannot be fixed?

In a Pollyanna move of my own, I've found a few things to be glad about this campaign season despite the gloom and doom represented by the two major parties. Though people have lamented for years that politics has become so negative, the extremes we've now come to expect are bearing some unexpectedly tasty fruit. Third parties are expanding in membership, and interest in them is growing. They're still largely blackballed by the mainstream media, but even that is slowly—ever so slowly!—starting to change. And the really good news is that, the worse the major party candidates become and the more frequently accusations fly in place of solutions, the better third party candidates are starting to look. That's true even for those people who've always been party line voters.

Of course, the converse is that we've probably got to have a few really awful candidates and presidents before enough people will look past their own Pollyanna politics to see that better alternatives are available. And the real question becomes whether or not the country can survive being systematically weakened and with our freedoms gradually eroded for too many more years. I'd like to say that I'm optimistic. But outside of the election of a candidate whose one campaign promise is to support the Constitution and Bill of Rights—and who, once elected, will keep that promise—I'm afraid even the Pollyanna part of me doesn't hold out much hope.

NOTE: This commentary wasn't intended to be a book review or recommendation when I started writing it, but as I finished my thoughts I realized that this might not be a bad place to suggest that those who haven't yet read a book entitled Hope do so. Written by Aaron Zelman (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and L. Neil Smith (The Libertarian Enterprise, among many other things), it tells the story of an unlikely presidential candidate whose promises concerning liberty actually come to fruition. Though I suspect Communists, Socialists, and far left Democrats (I believe I've just repeated myself) won't be fond of the book, nearly everyone else will be deeply struck by just how much they'll yearn for such a man to be President after they see what his candidacy and election means for America and Americans. The fact that you'll likely also enjoy the story is "just" a bonus. Hope is available directly from its online distributor.

Originally posted from 08-15-04 to 08-22-04
The (Too) High Cost of Politics
by Lady Liberty

I don't usually watch any coverage of the national political conventions. I think of them as hour long infomercials, broadcast solely to suggest to the average voter that he or she should buy this guy or that as the next President of the United States of America. But this year, entirely by accident, the television happened to be on when John Kerry stepped to the podium in Boston to accept the nomination of the Democratic Party. And that's how it is I heard John Kerry spend far more talk time using promises to buy votes than he did asking voters to buy his experience and his qualifications (there's a reason for that, of course, but that's a topic for another time).

In an obvious appeal to military members and those families with loved ones fighting overseas, John Kerry promised to "build a stronger American military," to "add 40,000 active duty troops" and "double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations," as well as to "provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives – and win the battle." He spoke of increasing security at such places as chemical and nuclear power plants, and of making sure that all cargo containers are inspected for contraband or terror tools.

Kerry implied he'd restore discontinued after school programming, and add more police to streets. He repeatedly mentioned prescription drug coverage for seniors, and then dropped in the notion of national health care insurance. He promised senior citizens he wouldn't privatize Social Security nor would he cut Social Security benefits. He also strongly suggested he'd prohibit - or strongly discourage - the outsourcing of jobs. (John Kerry's complete remarks are available on his web site.)

The audience went crazy when Candidate Kerry said these things. There were doubtless people there who had loved ones in the military or who had experienced a medical emergency that resulted in big bills; many in the audience almost certainly have school-age children and/or elderly parents. It's likely the vast majority of them had a job, too, that they didn't particularly want to lose. Those people hear those promises, and the answer is patently obvious: Hell, yes, I'll vote for John Kerry if he makes sure I get [fill in the blank here]!

Kerry has, during much of his campaign, talked of the burgeoning federal budget deficit. So have many other Democrat candidates, and rightfully so. But even as he criticized once again the expenses incurred by the Bush administration, he appealed to voters by railing against budget cuts that may have affected "feel good" programs of one kind or another. Far worse than that, he criticized the federal deficit even while he proposed and promised new programs that would represent a significant added drain on the treasury. And voters who let their votes be bought for these promises will find themselves paying a high price out of their own pockets in the increased taxes that must inevitably follow to pay for such big-ticket entitlements.

But let's be entirely fair, here, and consider President George W. Bush as well. He's on the campaign trail himself these days, seeking re-election as the Republican candidate for the nation's highest office. What's he offering for my vote?

Four years ago, George W. Bush said some things I liked. In fact, I liked those things quite a lot. He said he favored privacy and that it ought to be protected. He spoke about the Second Amendment and its importance. He talked about fiscal responsibility, and said he'd lower government expenditures and return some of my money to me while he worked to shrink government bureaucracy. Four years ago, I voted for George W. Bush. That's right: I placed enough value on his promises to exchange them for my vote (in my own defense, I placed an even higher value on keeping Al Gore out of the Oval Office).

Today, the President has made clear the Second Amendment doesn't matter enough to prevent him from signing the Assault Weapons Ban should it be renewed. His "fiscal responsibility" has resulted in the largest federal deficit in history, and his promises of smaller government have seen a major new federal department formed and massive increases in bureaucracy and government spending across the board. His respect for privacy has turned out to be the polar opposite as he leads an administration that has virtually eliminated privacy, and is actively working to get rid of those few protections that remain (the federal government, for example, just sided this month with banks in California that don't want to comply with a strict privacy law there).

Perhaps the President's most obvious hypocrisy involved his ongoing campaign promise that he would never sign a campaign finance reform bill. He later quietly went ahead and did just that (his utter disregard for the First Amendment has only been affirmed by the Secret Service policy of "free speech zones" for protesters ensuring the President never need see or hear anything the average citizen might have to say about his administration's policies).

Politicians, of course, rarely keep their promises. And when they do, they're often kept in such a way that we'd rather they hadn't kept them at all. President Bush, for example, has promised to do everything he can to keep Americans free from terrorism. Unfortunately, the word "free" is just about the last thing that's involved in the resultant campaigns. From the USA PATRIOT Act (which infringes dramatically on political speech, and largely guts the Fourth and Fifth Amendments), to utterly inappropriate and ineffective random searches at airports, to database-driven privacy invaders like MATRIX (Multi-State Anti Terrorism Information Exchange, an ostensibly private though government funded program), we've lost substantially more than we've gained - have we gained anything? - as the President attempts to keep that promise, at least as he sees it.

In this election year, Bush's promises are at least as scary as are John Kerry's. He's promising essentially what his father did in his own earlier campaign, and that's to "stay the course." We're already well down the road in the wrong direction, and he's assuring me he'll keep on going the same way if I vote for him? I'm almost tempted to vote for him just so he can break the promise and we can start the recovery process! But I suspect that, considering past history, that's another one of those rare promises a politician will do his utmost to keep. In the event he does, the loss of liberty and the erosion of respect for America will continue its downward trend, probably at an increased rate.

Author James Bovard, who has written several books about the ongoing losses of freedom in America, has just published his latest tome entitled "The Bush Betrayal." In his new book, he says that "vote-buying is the prime motive of many Bush policies," and he points out that those votes didn't come cheap. In fact, Bovard maintains that the Bush administration has "browbeat Congress into enacting the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society." It's his contention that "Americans will be forced to pay trillions of dollars in higher taxes in the coming decades." When you look at it that way, I didn't sell my vote to George W. Bush for a tax cut. I bought my own vote at a premium and then handed it over!

In weighing my options this election year, it's patently obvious that both John Kerry and George Bush will take my money and my liberty quickly, in quantity, and as often as they can drum up justification that sounds good. Whether it's John Kerry's "for the children," or "for the good of the majority" (has anybody else noticed that socialism is very much out in the open this year on a number of campaign platforms?) or George Bush's "to fight terrorism," I'm not buying. And quite frankly, I'm not for sale anymore, either. Some things - liberty being one of them - are just too valuable to sell at any price.

Originally posted from 08-01-04 to 08-08-04
Lemonade, Anyone?
by Lady Liberty

If there's one stereotyped profession I dislike nearly as much as I loathe the stereotypical politician, it's used car salesmen. And in the midst of this presidential campaign, do you know what I've been doing? Good guess. I've been shopping for a used vehicle.

It's been years since I've purchased a car. The last one I bought was about 15 years ago, and it's turned out to be a real bargain. It still runs well, gets good gas mileage, and by virtue of some years in Arizona and not so much as a single fender bender, it has no rust and only a minor scratch or two on the body. I even still like it. But despite all that, she's old. In car years, she is, in fact, about... well, dead and already recycled.

I'm a relatively organized shopper, particularly when it comes to a big-ticket item like a car. I sit down and consider what it is that I need in my new vehicle. Then I add to the list what I want in a new vehicle. The "need" list is non-negotiable; the "want" list is there to add perks to any deal, or to tip the decision one way or another should all other things prove equal. At the bottom of the list? My own bottom line of how much I'm willing to pay.

Oddly enough, I handle my preferences (such as they are) for politicians running for office in much the same way. I require certain things of them before they can have my vote, among them a healthy respect for the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments in particular. If they also want my active support, they need to do even better than that. For that, they'll need to actually respect the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights (which does save me a bundle in campaign contributions and volunteer time, if nothing else). The "want" items for politicians include an antipathy toward the United Nations and a commitment to lower and then repeal taxes. And the bottom line? Don't fulfill those needs, or promise those wants and don't deliver, not only will you not get my vote, but I'll actively work against your campaign.

Under usual circumstances, the vast majority of politicians have made it abundantly clear that they don't really care what any of us think of them. They make and break promises without a thought; they ignore pleas for assistance; they bend over backward for those things that will do the most for them rather than those that will offer the best for their constituents. But every couple of years, they start to care what we think. They start to care a whole lot.

In used car terms, the time that salesmen start to care is near the end of the month. There are quotas to be met and sales records to be surpassed. And woe to the salesman that doesn't meet or beat his goals! You can get deals at the end of the month that thirty days earlier would have been unthinkable.

Under similar circumstances, we can likely get politicians to make all sorts of deals with us right about now. But unlike signing on the dotted line at a car dealership and driving away in your brand new (at least to you) car, politicians get a sort of two-year (or four-year or six-year) some-hundred-odd-thousand-mile reverse warranty during which time they seem to believe they can break down almost at will because, after all, they're covered thanks to their term of office.

As I kept looking for a new car, I saw something else that seems to be quite a bit like politics in action, and that's the fact that the salesman often seemed to know what I wanted better than I knew what I wanted. "Small," it said on my "needs" list. "Automatic transmission," it said. I was also insisting on relatively low mileage, a fairly recent model year, and had a strong preference for four-wheel drive. And yet one salesman steered me directly to a 1997 Jeep with almost 90,000 miles on it, and another walked me over to a pair of small pick-up trucks, both of which were quite lovely except for that thingie with the black ball on the end of it sticking up from the floorboards that I think you have to move around some way or another if you want to actually go anywhere. I think. And oh, yes. They were both two-wheel drive models to boot.

Politicians are treating me - and just about everybody else - much the same way those car salesmen did. I apparently don't know what I really want. I am, instead, called "the American people," and in virtually every speech given by virtually every politician these days, I'm informed that "the American people want," and "the American people think" whether this American person wants that or thinks so or not. Perhaps much as the typical salesman thinks, politicians are convinced that, if they tell us what we want long enough, we'll actually start wanting it.

I can't tell you how many weekends I spent looking for a car this time around (well, I could get close, but I don't remember exactly when I started because it was some time ago). It took awhile to get the "needs" list met. Like I said, my current car was working fine. I was in no rush! And then I found the perfect vehicle. It met all of the "needs," and even a number of the "wants." And when I told the salesman my bottom line, he nodded and told me he didn't think we were really very far apart at all. So we went into his office and sat down to chat. He scribbled some numbers on a piece of paper, scratched his cheek once or twice, and then slid the paper over to me with his bottom line figure written on it.

I learned something new that afternoon. I learned that a nearly three thousand dollar difference is, apparently, "not very far apart." (I also learned that if you stand up and walk away when you're given such a number, the salesman is more than anxious to wheel and deal a little more.) In the end, I walked out for good because the bottom lines stayed too far apart for me to consider.

Politicians, by the same token, are happy to talk with you during election season. They're there to serve you, they say, and they're always happy to listen to your concerns because your concerns are their concerns. But get your own piece of paper sometime with that politician's bottom line noted on it. Review your politician's voting records. And when you see for a fact that you're very far apart indeed, do what I did: walk out. Well, figuratively, anyway. And show them that you've left the building by telling them so.

But don't give up! Keep looking for what you need and want. It could be that there's another candidate out there that matches your own demands just perfectly and will even offer a few little perks for your consideration. It could also be that the original candidate, when he sees another "sale" leaving the room, might rethink or at least restate his positions (maybe not - but I'd be willing to bet you whatever you'd like that seeing enough "sales" walking out of the voting booth would convince him).

I waited until the end of the month before I went back to check out that perfect (except for the price) vehicle again. They still had the car, and you know what? I presented an even lower bottom line because I wasn't happy that I had to spend another few weeks looking and then had to go back to that dealership and argue some more. They took the deal. I got the car, and I got what I wanted and more for the dollar figure I was willing to pay. It took significant time and more effort than I would have wished (not to mention some relatively convoluted networking with friends of friends), but I'm quite pleased with the end result.

The same kind of end-of-the-month desperation can be seen in political warrooms everywhere when statistics show a race is being lost or is, at least, being harder fought than comfortable. Take advantage of that weakness while you can because it only comes along at certain times and under certain conditions. And if you don't get the deal you want, don't buy! Used car salesman are supposed to sell us the car we want; politicians are supposed to do the job we hire them for. Just as you wouldn't buy a vehicle you don't like no matter the salesman's high pressure tactics, why would you rehire an employee that you think ought to be fired? Are you worried the person replacing him will be even more incompetant? Fire him, too. Or maybe think about hiring the guy in the background, the one that's far better qualified but doesn't have years of experience or a designer interview suit...

If you buy a car you didn't want, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you're not happy with your elected officials, despite the fact it's them not doing the job that's making you unhappy, that's your fault, too (well, more fairly, it's the fault of the collective group that voted for him last time around). So take charge. Educate yourself. Educate your friends and family. Don't fall for sales gimmicks on either the used car lot or in the voting booth!

By the way, I really like my new car. But, like most states, mine has what's called a "lemon law." That means that, if this vehicle turns out to be a "lemon," I've got recourse to make the dealer make good on everything. Given all the other things politicians and used car salesmen have in common, I'm thinking it might be a fine idea to consider a "lemon law" for politicians. After the elections, if they don't work right, why wait? Either fix 'em, or replace 'em and move on.

Originally posted from 07-18-04 to 07-26-04
The Lesser Evil vs. The Greatest Good
by Lady Liberty

The 2004 election is now only four months away, and at the height of summer, the campaign rhetoric continues to heat up. We're inundated with negative campaign ads; we're flooded with media reports of who is campaigning where; and most of us are left shaking our heads over the futility of finding even one candidate that's wholly acceptable. It's that lack of acceptable candidates over the course of many years now that's had most of us shrugging our shoulders and resignedly casting a ballot for the lesser evil, and which has finally come to mean that some no longer go to the polls at all.

Pollsters are everywhere asking potential voters their preferences, and with every poll, the race between the two major party presidential candidates seems to stay neck-and-neck. But other opinions have started to filter out this election year, and some are heartening. Much as Ralph Nader apparently siphoned votes from those on the left who didn't think Al Gore was quite left enough, there are candidates in the Constitution and Libertarian Parties who could very well do the same this year to George W. Bush (Nader is, of course, back in the race but so far hasn't managed to get onto any state ballots). Gun owners - traditionally Republican voters - can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, but large numbers are threatening to stay home this year because they can't bring themselves to vote for George W. Bush, either. And John Kerry, while he's not facing any real threats from alternative party candidates or any overwhelming competition from the Republican Party, can't manage to scare up any real support for his campaign, either.

George W. Bush is suffering from broken promises and an artificially centrist stance which has alienated the hopeful conservatives and Reaganesque libertarians who elected him; John Kerry is suffering from a well deserved reputation for waffling, wallowing, and a truly astounding lack of personal charisma. And yet there are voters on both sides of the political spectrum who, swallowing their bile, are going to vote for the candidate belonging to the party that has traditionally come closest to representing their own ideology. Why are they holding their breath as the pull the lever? Because they're voting for the lesser of the evils which, as some have pointed it, is by definition also the greater good.

I've never endorsed any candidate from any party. I've also never claimed membership in any party. That's because there's never been a candidate or a platform with which I could completely agree. Though I'll confess to occasionally copping to the "lesser evil" excuse and forcing myself to vote accordingly, I simply could not stand up in public and say, "Hey, this would be a great guy to vote for!" because I quite frankly have never believed it myself. Oh, I've voted for some decent candidates and been relatively pleased to do so. But were they truly candidates about whom I had no reservations? Nope, not a one of them (and lest you ask, no, I've never had the privilege of casting a ballot for the one politician in Washington for whom I do have respect, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas).

Under the Democrat Clinton administration, we found the federal government considering nationalized health care; accused of using FBI files to threaten government workers; lying to Congress under oath; bombing aspirin factories; drastically curtailing the Second Amendment; and in general sullying the Oval Office while taxing the life out of the average American worker. Under the Republican Bush administration, we have (so far) found the federal government accused of inadequate (at best) foreign intelligence; apparently covering up connections between big business and foreign policy; drastically curtailing most of the rest of the Bill of Rights while continuing - despite promises otherwise - to attack the Second Amendment; and in general muddying America's reputation around the world while taxing the life out of the average American worker. If there's a lesser evil here, I'm hard pressed to find it.

Everything that I've discussed, criticized, or complimented in my past weekly columns has come from a single perspective: that of Liberty as originally defined and presented in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The news articles I've highlighted have, without an exception, been those with positive or negative impacts on our liberties as affirmed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since national officeholders in this country take an oath that involves swearing to uphold the Constitution, you'd think I could find a presidential candidate actually willing to do so. This year, I finally did.

While several of the candidates may adhere to one or two of the following platform planks or campaign promises, there's only one who can say he's in favor of each and every one, and without expending tax dollars to get them, either. Those things include free enterprise; a policy of global non-interference; affordable health care and prescription drugs; self defense and the Second Amendment; separation of church and state (for example, he opposes a federal marriage amendment on the grounds it infringes on freedom of religion); the Fourth and Tenth Amendments; and much more. He has expressed not merely a willingness to reconsider certain laws, but a conviction to actually repeal those that are not authorized by the Constitution. To add credibility to his promises, he has a demonstrated knowledge of the Constitution in that he actually teaches classes on the document and its meaning.

This candidate - the single man out of the many running for national office in 2004 who actually cares about true liberty and American freedom as it was intended by the Founding Fathers - is this year's Libertarian presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik. Go to the campaign web site and read more about Mr. Badnarik's qualifications and viewpoints for yourself. And then consider very carefully the following:

Argument: If you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil may win!
Answer:Yes, it might. But you'll be able to sleep at night knowing that you didn't vote for evil at all. (It should also help you to note that the lesser evil isn't really all that much lesser any more...)

Argument: If you vote for a third party candidate, you'll waste your vote.
Answer: If you don't vote for the candidate of your conscience, you have wasted your vote no matter who wins.

Argument: If Michael Badnarik gets too many votes, George W. Bush might lose.
Answer: If Michael Badnarik gets so many votes he has a real impact on this year's elections, then there will be - finally! - real credibility for third party candidates, and the respect to go along with it that will be extraordinarily valuable in future elections.

...and just for a moment, dare to consider:

If every single American who is tired of voting for the lesser of evils actually voted for the candidate of his or her choice, Michael Badnarik would stand a chance at being far more than a mere spoiler in these elections. He could be a contender. Want to make history with a pro-freedom revolution via the ballot box rather than bloodshed? Inhale the spirit of the Founding Fathers, and have the courage to vote against an overreaching government and for freedom. Vote for Michael Badnarik. At worst, an important point will have been made. At best? Someone's going to win this year's elections, and it would be a truly glorious day if it were all of those who love liberty who came out ahead in the end because Michael Badnarik came out ahead in the polls.

Originally posted from 06-30-04 to 07-04-04
Political Matters
by Lady Liberty

This past week, I traveled back home for a family event. As most of you know, I decline to fly (and will continue to do so as long as needlessly invasive security measures remain in place). That means I spent two very long days behind the wheel of a rental car with little to do but endure traffic jams on my way through several large cities and listen to the radio.

On my first day on the road, virtually every talk show featured discussions of former President Bill Clinton's autobiography. Callers chimed in to say that they thought he was a good guy with some bad habits, or that he was perhaps the "lyingest" politician ever to hold office (which, given the typical politician, is really saying something). Snippets of Clinton's appearances on the media circuit were aired and dissected at length. It was, without question, the story of the week.

After my weekend visit with friends and family, I was back on the road and listening to news talk shows once again. This time, from station to station, the topic of the day was filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Callers told hosts the movie was a lengthy political attack ad, or that Moore might have had a point amidst his manipulated material. The "documentary" (I use the term exceedingly loosely) was number one at the box office over the weekend in ticket sales, and was patently the top story leading off the newsweek.

After having spent a couple of days hearing the airwaves thoroughly saturated with these two stories, it might be reasonable to assume that pretty much everybody was talking about books and movies, most especially those from Bill Clinton and Michael Moore. But it struck me that, in the time between those two days in my car, neither of these things were mentioned even once.

I'm from a place that east and west coast liberals like to scathingly refer to as "flyover country." People there are stolidly middle class, family-oriented, hard working, and usually possessed of feet planted firmly on the ground. In other words, they exemplify the traditional average decent American, the backbone of the country and, lest the politicos be tempted to forget, a sizeable voting block. And what were these people talking about while much of the media was waxing eloquent on literary liars and fibbing filmmakers? Well, aside from catching up with the latest family or local goings on, they seemed to find plenty to discuss, including:

  • A cousin ready for her last year of graduate school (she's about to receive a Master's degree in Education) wondered aloud not only about the job market, but about her possible future as a teacher in a rapidly declining public school system (worries brought home to me when another of the younger generation asked if anyone had a calculator so that he could subtract a check he'd just written from his bank account balance).
  • A mother, while updating everyone on her children's latest status, mentioned almost in passing that one son was in Kuwait and getting ready for an imminent deployment to Fallujah, Iraq (if any of you don't immediately grasp the import of that remark, type "Fallujah" into a search engine and watch the scary stories scroll up).
  • While talking in general terms about the Internet, an elderly family friend happened to note that she got all of her prescriptions from Canada via online sites because she couldn't afford them at American pharmacies.
  • A teenager who hoped to travel this summer was having a difficult time convincing her mother that she'd be all right flying alone. Security was only a peripheral thought in the mind of the worried parent who seemed to be even more concerned for the haphazard (at best) customer service offered by airlines with a penchant for lost luggage and delayed or cancelled flights.
  • An older couple talked quietly about the places they'd wanted to go this summer, but lamented that the combination of their modest and fixed income with high gas prices was keeping them close to home instead.
  • A man in the midst of a messy divorce could hardly credit finding himself the victim of a politically correct system that - at least for the time being - has allowed a wife of less than a year to have possession of his longtime family home while forcing him to go elsewhere until his case is resolved.
  • Another mother took note of the fact that two of her children had been prescribed psychotropic drugs, one for being "slow" and "distracted, the other for, ironically, the opposite. Neither child, she said, is "quite himself " (I wonder why).

Politicians in this election season talk about the bad things their opponents have done in the past while glossing over their own indiscretions (sure, Jack Ryan isn't a couth man, but he's one up on former President Clinton seeing as how he at least wanted to commit his sexual peccadilloes with his own wife). Members of the media listen closely to what people like Barbra Streisand or Ann Coulter have to say about politics, and it seems that right and wrong are all too frequently dismissed in favor of right and left. Talk show hosts on both ends of the political spectrum are spending substantial air time on books and movies instead of more important issues (for the moment, anyway; perhaps next week, we'll see the topic change to something equally impactful, like whether or not John Kerry's hair looks good on television - something else, by the way, I actually heard discussed at some length one afternoon a few weeks ago).

But ordinary Americans - the ones that America is supposed to be all about, and who even now comprise the vast majority of the population - have little in common with politicians (thank God!), the media, or the famous elite. Instead, despite the efforts of politicians, the media, and the famous elite, their concerns are close to home and hearth and very much resemble those worries expressed by my own family and former neighbors last weekend.

Perhaps instead of a junket to Europe, politicians might consider a trip back home for a family reunion where they might finally get a little dose of the reality the rest of us live in. Maybe instead of another sensational interview with a woman who killed her babies, talk show hosts should think about an interview with a mother who loves her children - and worries about their future in light of various of the present trends in government.

Or maybe - just maybe - the majority of Americans who are ordinary people - and who have perfectly ordinary problems - should stand up and be extraordinarily angry that they're being ignored. While I doubt that Barbra Streisand or Dan Rather would care, politicians are easy. They'll go where the votes are. It's just up to the voters to let them know in no uncertain terms where those votes lie - and where they'll be cast instead if attention isn't paid to those things that really matter. The catch, of course, is that voters have to care about politicians as much as politicians don't care for the average citizen. And that's a whole 'nother battle, one that may prove even harder to win.

Originally posted from 06-06-04 to 06-13-04
Ronald Reagan's Real Legacy
by Lady Liberty

I was out and about all day long taking care of myriad weekend chores. It wasn't until I returned home, got a cold drink, and went to check my e-mail that I learned former President Ronald Reagan had died. After announcing a decade ago that he had Alzheimer's disease, he had largely disappeared from the public eye. Perhaps that's why, though his death should have been expected, the news still came as a suprise. It also came as a bit of a shock to me personally as I realized I felt bad about it.

I can remember all too well the night that Reagan won his first presidential election. The year was 1980. I was young, idealistic, and devastated that a conservative should take the White House. My long-haired boyfriend and I hung an American flag upside down in our window that night, and backlit it with a candle. We watched the election returns by the flickering light of the flame we'd lit in protest, and lamented the bad things we were sure would come as a result. (As devastated as we were convinced we were that night, the fact that Reagan would soon take his oath of office was shoved aside when John Lennon was gunned down and my boyfriend - he who not only had long hair but affected to wear John Lennon-style glasses - spent another even more melodramatic and tearful night listening to Beatles albums and drinking cheap wine.)

When Ronald Reagan took the oath of office on January 20, 1981, Iran released the American hostages it had been holding for the past 444 days. Some pundits had it that the hostages were released because the hostage-takers feared overwhelming military retaliation by the new American president. I believed those stories, but they generated no thanks to Reagan from me. I was rather more afraid of him and his administration than ever.

When Reagan was shot just a couple of months later, I was actually more upset that the incident would make him at least temporarily popular due to public sympathy than I was over the shooting itself. (Of course, if I'd had a crystal ball and known what Jim Brady's wife would do in the wake of the shooting that injured her husband along with the president, I would have been more than merely upset about it. In the end, it may be that John Hinckley's true legacy is more far-reaching and negative than even he could have fantasized.)

Still quite young, but now married to the long-haired boyfriend, I moved to the big city. Like many newlyweds, we didn't have much money, but we had a roof over our heads and food to eat. I had a good job with good benefits, and prospects for the near term were looking relatively good for us. But I paid no attention to the president's economic theories (and probably wouldn't have credited him with anything if I had). Instead, I worried about his outspoken hatred for Communism and the Soviet threat. In fact, it was during those years I became a member of the Ground Zero society (a loosely organized collection of people who promise to head for an assumed target area in the event of a nuclear attack warning, on the grounds survival of such an attack would be far worse than being painlessly vaporized). I dinstinctly recall a few occasions where jets flew too low over the neighborhood and when, for an agonizing second, I wondered if it might not be a missile instead of a plane. (I suspect you