David Boaz

The New York Times has an interesting graphic, under the heading "Choice Words," that shows how differently Ron Paul talks about the role of government from all the other candidates. There's a complete version here, but I've excerpted a section. The Times notes that the graphic depicts "selected words used by President Obama in his State of the Union addresses, and by Republican presidential candidates in their debates, television interviews and major speeches since May." Read more...

Here's an edited version of last night's special "Stossel" show following the State of the Union Address. Our Cato tape editors have cut right to my opening one-one-one with Stossel, wherein I talk about Obama's "blueprint" for America and my suggestion for a bumper sticker reading YES YOU DID. Later Matt Welch, Megan McArdle, and Gov. Gary Johnson join the discussion and take on issue of taxes, Iraq, the looming but mostly ignored entitlements crisis, outsourcing, and the president's audacious claim that his $50 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler had been a good deal. Skip the commercials, watch it here:

Great article in the Sunday Washington Post by James Grant on the depression of 1920-21 and how after President Warren G. Harding's response, "the unemployment rate fell from 15.6 percent to 9 percent (on its way to 3.2 percent in 1923), while constant-dollar output leapt by 16 percent. After which the 1920s proverbially roared."

And how did the administration of Warren G. Harding, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, produce these astonishing results? Why, by raising interest rates, reducing the public debt and balancing the federal budget.

Pundits often accuse Herbert Hoover of "doing nothing" to counter the depression of 1929. Boy, are they wrong. Grant thinks Harding doesn't get his due:

When he wasn’t presiding over a macroeconomic miracle cure, Harding convened a world disarmament conference and overhauled the creaky machinery of federal budget-making. For his trouble, historians customarily place him last, or next to last, in their rankings of U.S. presidents. Incredibly, they consign him near the bottom even in the subcategory of economic management, about 40 places behind Franklin D. Roosevelt, who inherited a depression that he didn’t actually fix.

The Hoover-Roosevelt-Bush-Obama do-something-anything-everything approach to economic recovery seems to result in elongated depressions. Take a look:   Maybe we should try the Harding do-nothing approach -- which isn't actually do-nothing; he cut taxes and spending and balanced the budget. Cato scholars have written about how Harding ended a depression here and here.

Ron Paul didn't do as well with Republican voters in South Carolina as he had done in Iowa and New Hampshire. But he's still the king of Twitter. (And tweeters, of course, are the people who in one day faced down Hollywood and forced leading senators to withdraw their online-piracy bills.) Natalie Jennings of the Washington Post reports:

NBC’s Chuck Todd might have summed up Thursday’s events best with this tweet:

Books about this campaign will have chapters simply titled: "January 19th"

Mitt Romney faced mounting pressure to release his tax returns as reports surfaced Wednesday night he might have assets in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. The Des Moines Register declared that Rick Santorum actually got more votes than Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Rick Perry announced he would suspend his campaign in a morning news conference. Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, said in interviews with ABC and The Washington Post that the former speaker had asked her for an open marriage. And Gingrich exploded at moderator John King within the first few minutes of the CNN debate that night. And yet, through it all, Ron Paul maintained his lead on the@MentionMachine leaderboard this week. We measured tweets from Wednesday at 7 p.m. through Friday at 4 p.m.

Lots of Cato commentary on Ron Paul here. Some Mitt Romney analysis here. Some pretty sharp criticisms of Rick Santorum here. Aaaand my colleagues haven't been too keen on Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama either. What kind of policies would we like to see a presidential candidate propose? Check out the Cato Handbook for Policymakers.

One of the most famous documents in the history of free-trade literature is Bastiat's famous “Candlemakers’ Petition.” In that parody, the French economist and parliamentarian imagined the makers of candles and street lamps petitioning the French Chamber of Deputies for protection from a most dastardly foreign competitor:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry. We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity. . . . We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival . . .  is none other than the sun.

For after all, Bastiat’s petitioners noted, how can the makers of candles and lanterns compete with a light source that is totally free? Thank goodness we wouldn’t fall for such nonsense today. Or would we? We may be about to find out. Makers of solar panels have petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission to slap tariffs on imported Chinese panels. Christopher Joyce of NPR reports that Gordon Brinser, CEO of Solar World, complains that U.S. manufacturers can't compete with cheaper Chinese imports. The Chinese panels aren't free; but just as Bastiat's candlemakers complained, the competition is hard to counter. Perhaps the comparison is unfair. After all, the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing isn't asking for protection from the sun, only from Chinese panel producers who are allegedly “dumping” panels into the American market “at artificially low prices.” What’s the difference, though? Any source that supplies solar panels to American consumers and businesses is a competitor of the American industry. And any source that can deliver any product cheaper than American companies is a tough competitor. Domestic producers will no doubt gain by imposing a tariff on their Chinese competitors. But companies that install solar power will lose, by having to pay higher prices for panels. Businesses would always prefer a world without competitors. If they can't outcompete their rivals in the marketplace, they may be tempted to ask the government for protection. And our "antidumping" laws actually invite such complaints. But economists agree that consumers, and the businesses that use imported products, lose more on net than producers gain. Protectionism is a bad deal for the American economy. Let's hope the uncompetitive solar panel manufacturers get told to go build a better mousetrap. More on "antidumping" laws here.

Congratulations to Wikipedia for going dark for a day in protest of the "online piracy" bills being considered in Congress. But what do we do for information today? You know, we've gotten used to being able to find information now. So here's an idea: Try the original encyclopedia, the one written (in most cases, ahem) by scholars and experts, Britannica. You could start with their article on libertarianism. Or indeed their article on censorship. And then move on to the columns that I wrote there for most of 2011, on such topics as the debt ceiling crisis, the French Revolution, the founding documents of the United States and the Communist Party of China, the false charge of isolationism, marriage equality in 1967 and 2011,  government waste ("this is the business you have chosen"), the Stonewall protests, the triumph of feminism, and why Keynes threw towels on the floor. Good heavens -- that ought to keep you busy on Wednesday. And then Thursday at noon, as Wikipedia and other sites reopen, you can go down to Capitol Hill at noon to see a panel of experts explain what's wrong with the bills that the websites are protesting.

In the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann frets over Ron Paul's "hostility to government" in an article titled "Enemy of the State." I wonder if Lemann, who is both a long-time writer at a great magazine and the dean of a great school of journalism, would think "Enemy of the State" was red-baiting or otherwise inappropriate language if it was applied to some other candidate. But I was especially struck by this comment in Lemann's lament about all the government programs Paul would repeal:

As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced no regulation that might have prevented it, no government stabilization of the financial system after it happened, and no special help for working people hurt by it. This is where the logic of government-shrinking leads.

The famous New Yorker editing process seems to have broken down here. Here's how the paragraph should have read:

As for the financial crisis, Paul would have countenanced none of the regulation that helped to cause it, no government creation of cheap money that created the unsustainable boom, and no special help for Wall Street banks when the bubble collapsed. He would have seen that that was where the logic of government-expanding leads.

The Sunday Washington papers carried several dire reports about the state of freedom in America. Funny thing is, they didn't much agree on what kinds of freedoms are being lost. In the Washington Post, law professor Jonathan Turley warned:

In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves? . . . . An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

He pointed to such hallmarks of authoritarian states as the official assassination of U.S. citizens, warrantless searches, immunity from judicial review, and continual monitoring of citizens. Meanwhile, the editorial in the Washington Examiner deplored the rise in regulation and federal spending under President Obama "and the resulting decline in U.S. economic freedom." And Michael Barone of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the Examiner about President Obama's not-really-recess appointments:

The Framers of the Constitution saw it a different way. When the Senate refuses to confirm a presidential appointee, that person does not take office. When the Senate is not in recess, the president cannot make a recess appointment. The Framers thought it more important to limit power than for government to act quickly. Obama disagrees.

All good points. The three articles together would make a comprehensive case brief on the loss of freedom under President Obama. And under President Bush, of course. After all, Turley notes that Bush pioneered many of the new powers that Obama now exercises. Bush also increased federal spending dramatically and expanded regulation and economic intervention from Sarbanes-Oxley to TSA to TARP. Libertarians have long argued that freedom is indivisible, that it is difficult to sustain either political or economic freedom for long without the other. These articles remind us that both economic and civil liberties are threatened today, and thus we need a broad movement to protect and advance liberty and limited government against all these threats.

The other day I saw a bumper sticker with an Obama logo and the words YES WE DID. This was hardly a surprise, as Obama got 67 percent of the vote in my neighborhood and 72 percent in my county, home to lobbyists and bureaucrats. And the embattled Republicans don't flaunt their dissidence on their bumpers. But I began to wonder just what the driver was proud of. Yes we did increase the national debt by $4 trillion? Yes we did create a national health insurance program passed in such haste that it's full of gross errors and requires restrictions on telling the media about it? Yes we did continue the wars a lot longer than we promised? Yes we did launch a third war in the Middle East without congressional authorization? Yes we did exercise presidential power more aggressively than George W. Bush? Yes we did laugh at the very idea of not arresting people for smoking pot? Yes we did ratchet up regulatory costs in a weak economy? Yes we did create the slowest recovery in postwar history? Soon even my Republican neighbors may be sporting bumper stickers reading YES YOU DID.

The reviewers warned me -- don't see The Iron Lady, the new movie starring Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Kelly Jane Torrance of the Washington Examiner mourns, "The climax of this movie about one of the most important people -- not just women, but people -- of the 20th century comes when Margaret Thatcher decides to throw out her dead husband's clothes." James Verniere of the Boston Herald asks, "Mamma mia! Why would you turn the story of Margaret Thatcher into a tale of a sweet, dotty old lady having a love affair with her beloved late husband?" Virginia Postrel excoriates the filmmakers: "These supposedly feminist filmmakers could have portrayed Thatcher as an ambitious woman who had nothing to feel guilty about. Instead they chose to inject guilt where it did not belong. They obscured Thatcher’s public accomplishments in a fog of private angst. The portrait of dementia isn’t the problem. The way the film uses old age to punish a lifetime of accomplishment is." Even the Washington Post, the New York Times ("You are left with the impression of an old woman who can’t quite remember who she used to be and of a movie that is not so sure either."), and the New Yorker wonder why you would make a movie about one of the most influential and controversial political figures, the first woman to lead a Western country, the woman who arguably saved Great Britain and helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War, and then spend half the film depicting her as a confused old lady with hallucinations. Nevertheless, Thatcher is indeed a compelling figure, and the commercials and trailers showed Streep portraying her as a leader of conviction and strength. So I ignored the critics and bought a ticket. And the film was slightly better than I expected. It absolutely wastes about 40 percent of its time on the imagined scenes of a confused old lady. How much more rewarding it would have been to see a great actress play a pioneering political figure rising to power, leading her country, and facing opposition from both friends and enemies. Instead, we get a few vignettes of that, about half the film's running time. So it wasn't terrible, just a lost opportunity. Interestingly, the marketing team at Weinstein Company seems to understand the appeal of a film on Margaret Thatcher far better than the writer and director. They know what the audience wants. Take a look at the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKPltuiEVJ8   You'll notice that there's not a single shot of the old-lady part of the movie. Instead, it's two fast minutes of Margaret Thatcher in action. Including a final scene ("Gentlemen, shall we join the ladies") that harks back to an earlier scene of Thatcher on her way up, dramatizes her uniqueness -- and is actually not in the film. So I have a suggestion: Often the DVD of a film will include the film as released to theaters and also a "Director's Cut" that reflects the director's own artistic choices that the studio may have blocked. I recommend that the DVD of The Iron Lady include a "Marketer's Cut" that omits all the old-lady scenes and just shows us Margaret Thatcher the political figure. And if there's good material like the "join the ladies" scene left on the cutting-room floor, then the marketers could add that back in. In that case, I'd buy the DVD. In fact, someone should start a Facebook campaign: "Put a Marketer's Cut of The Iron Lady on the DVD." By the way, Mitt Romney should not want Republicans to watch this movie: It will remind them of what it means to be inspired by a political leader.