David Boaz

Participants in various current controversies would do well to settle into a comfortable chair and ponder these words of George Washington, sent to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., 220 years ago today:

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens. The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people. The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

I am particularly struck by the third paragraph, which proclaims that the government of the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" -- thoughts that both reflected and shaped the character of the new nation. Those words actually echo the congregation's address to President Washington. But the preceding line is even more impressive:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.

That is, equal freedom under the law is not something extended by some as "toleration" of others. Rather, all people who "demean themselves as good citizens" are allowed the free "exercise of their inherent natural rights." It took almost two centuries to fulfill that promise to Jews, to women, and especially to African Americans. And even today Muslim and gay Americans may wonder if they are still regarded as objects of toleration "by the indulgence of one class of people" rather than as full citizens entitled to "the exercise of their inherent natural rights." Let us continue to work toward George Washington's dream of a world in which "every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

A story this morning on NPR's "Morning Edition" reminded me of my continuing complaint that the mainstream (liberal) media regularly put an ideological label on conservative and libertarian organizations and interviewees, but not on liberal and leftist groups.  In a report about states accepting stimulus funds, reporter Kathy Lohr quoted "Jon Shure of the Washington D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," "Maurice Emsellem with the National Employment Law Project," and "Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the fiscally conservative Cato Institute in Washington, D.C." (Thanks! And I'd say the label is correct, even if I might prefer libertarian.) Those are all legitimate sources for the story. But only one of them gets an ideological label -- even though the other two groups are clearly on the left. They're to the left of the Obama administration; indeed, they're probably part of what the White House press secretary calls the "professional left." So why not alert listeners that you might be getting a "liberal" or "leftist" perspective from those two sources, just as you warned them that the Cato Institute was speaking from a fiscally conservative perspective? Back on March 23, I noted but did not blog about references on "Morning Edition" to "the libertarian Cato Institute," the "conservative American Enterprise Institute," and "the Brookings Institution." No label needed for Brookings, of course. Just folks there. (A bit of Googling reveals that the Brookings reference came from Marketplace Radio, heard on WAMU as an insert into "Morning Edition." But NPR never labels it either.) NPR's ombudsman noted in July that NPR uses the term "ultra-conservative" a lot more than "ultra-liberal." It's all too typical of the mainstream-liberal media: They put ideological warning labels on libertarians and conservatives, lest readers and listeners be unaware of the potential for bias, but very rarely label liberals and leftists. Note the absence of labels on NPR in frequent references to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Journalists should be more even-handed: label all your sources ideologically, or none of them. It's stacking the deck to label those on the right but not those on the left.

NPR's 9:00 a.m. newscast this morning included this accidentally accurate line:

Government, rather General Motors is expected to announce plans for an initial public offering of stock this week.

The comment can be heard here at about 3:10, but I assume the online hourly report is updated throughout the day. For more on Government Motors, click here.

A front-page story in today's New York Times begins:

Michael R. Bloomberg is a former Wall Street mogul with a passion for the rights of a private property owner.

The story is about the not-really-at-Ground-Zero mosque, of course. Bloomberg has a passion for property rights --- except when the property owner wants to allow smoking on his own property or just wants to keep the property he owns even if a richer person wants it.

Cal Thomas, who bills himself as "America's #1 nationally syndicated columnist," rose to fame as the vice president of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in its heyday, though you won't find that fact in any of his official biographies. But you could figure it out by reading his columns. In his latest, on the California gay marriage decision, he ranges from factual inaccuracy to a revelation of just how reactionary and authoritarian he really is, to a really striking biblical citation. He starts by denouncing the "decision by a single, openly gay federal judge." Not true. Judge Vaughn Walker may be gay, but he has never said so. And Salon magazine demonstrates that any such "evidence" is extraordinarily thin. So this is an extraordinary statement by a man who calls himself a journalist of 40 years' standing. Not to mention an offensive suggestion that gay people shouldn't serve as judges. Thomas went so far as to call former attorney general Ed Meese, who recommended Walker to President Ronald Reagan, to ask how such a thing could have happened, and Meese assures him,  “There was absolutely no knowledge, rumor or suspicion” of Vaughn Walker being a homosexual at the time of his nomination by Ronald Reagan. Well, thank God. You'd hate to think that Ronald Reagan would have put an accomplished Republican lawyer on the federal bench if he'd been a homosexual. Thomas goes on to complain that this (not) "openly gay federal judge" has struck down "the will of 7 million Californians." Well, yes.  Of course, 6.4 million Californians voted the other way, so I guess on net he struck down the will of 600,000 Californians. And that's what judges do when they strike down unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court in Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia "struck down the will of tens of millions of Americans." Libertarians and conservatives asked the Court in the Kelo case to strike down the duly enacted eminent-domain laws of Connecticut. Read more...

A banner Washington Post headline (page 11, print edition; slightly different online) reads:

Stocks plunge as trade deficit widens

Of course, they could have gone with

Stocks plunge as Linda McMahon wins Senate nomination

Or my favorite:

Stocks plunge as Cardinals sweep Reds

Since national trade deficits are not much more meaningful than baseball scores, it's unlikely that this month's report drove stocks down.

Peter Wallsten of the Wall Street Journal writes, "Libertarianism is enjoying a recent renaissance in the Republican Party." He cites Ron Paul's winning the presidential straw poll earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rand Paul's upset victory in the Kentucky senatorial primary, and former governor Gary Johnson's evident interest in a libertarian-leaning presidential campaign. Johnson tells Wallsten in an interview that he'll campaign on spending cuts -- including military spending, on entitlements reform, and on a rational approach to drug policy. Meanwhile, on the same day, Rand Paul had a major op-ed in USA Today discussing whether he's a libertarian. Not quite, he says. But sort of:

In my mind, the word "libertarian" has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and "Tea Party" activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I. I choose to use a different phrase to describe my beliefs — I consider myself a constitutional conservative, which I take to mean a conservative who actually believes in smaller government and more individual freedom. The libertarian principles of limited government, self-reliance and respect for the Constitution are embedded within my constitutional conservatism, and in the views of countless Americans from across the political spectrum. Our Founding Fathers were clearly libertarians, and constructed a Republic with strict limits on government power designed to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens above all else.

And he appeals to the authority of Ronald Reagan:

Liberty is our heritage; it's the thing constitutional conservatives like myself wish to preserve, which is why Ronald Reagan declared in 1975, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Reagan said that several times, including in a Reason magazine interview and in a 1975 speech at Vanderbilt University that I attended. A lot of libertarians complained that he should stop confusing libertarianism and conservatism. And once he began his presidential campaign that fall, he doesn't seem to have used the term any more. You can see in both the Paul op-ed and the Johnson interview that major-party politicians are nervous about being tagged with a label that seems to imply a rigorous and radical platform covering a wide range of issues. But if you can call yourself a conservative without necessarily endorsing everything that William F. Buckley Jr. and the Heritage Foundation -- or Jerry Falwell and Mike Huckabee -- believe, then a politician should be able to be a moderate libertarian or a libertarian-leaning candidate. I wrote a book outlining the full libertarian perspective. But I've also coauthored studies on libertarian voters, in which I assume that you're a libertarian voter if you favor free enterprise and social tolerance, even if you don't embrace the full libertarian philosophy. At any rate, it's good to see major officials, candidates, and newspapers talking about libertarian ideas and their relevance to our current problems.

I went back home to Kentucky to attend the Fancy Farm Picnic last Saturday. It may be the biggest political event in the state; it takes place every August, 10 miles from where I grew up, and somehow I'd never attended before. It was time. I got there just in time to hear Senate candidates Jack Conway and Rand Paul give their 7-minute speeches. (There are lots of speakers, and timekeepers are strict.) There were plenty of advocates for both candidates among the 2000 or so people watching. It's an old Democratic area, but they're conservative Democrats who now mostly vote Republican in federal races.

It was well over 90 degrees and humid, so both candidates handed out fans:

As I listened to the candidates, my main impression was this: Conway accused Rand Paul of being an extremist, and Paul accused Conway of being a Democrat. The question for November is which charge will stick. Gov. Steve Beshear, introducing Conway, warmed up the attack: “[Paul] is going to balance the federal budget on the backs of our school children. He’s going to balance the federal budget on the backs of our coal miners. On the backs of our farmers. On the backs of our law enforcement officials,” he shouted. “The entire commonwealth of Kentucky — Republicans, Democrats and independents — ought to be scared to death about Rand Paul!” Referring to last year's controversy over Conway's calling himself a "tough son of a bitch" -- it's a church picnic, after all -- and the "seven words you can't say on television," Paul said, "There are six more words you won't hear Jack Conway say [on the campaign trail]: President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." So which do Kentucky voters dislike more: the national Democratic party's big-government agenda or the prospect that Rand Paul might actually try to cut the size of government? In a world where everyone gets something from government, it's not obvious. But so far Paul is holding on to a lead in the polls. In Fancy Farm, I noticed that all the Conway supporters had the campaign's official signs and buttons, plus hand-lettered signs that had clearly been produced in campaign offices, such as this "NeanderPaul" sign that I picked up after the shouting was over:

Paul's supporters, on the other hand, brought a lot of their own homemade signs. Conway's supporters were more disciplined. You didn't see any Conway supporters showing up dressed as Abraham Lincoln or a colonial soldier (though news reports say there was a guy dressed as a "neanderthal" holding the above sign), or wearing T-shirts reading "Who is John Galt?" The greater grass-roots enthusiasm for Paul has both pluses and minuses. Clearly he's appealing to stronger currents than mere partisan politics and generating more enthusiasm. But that means he's more at risk of supporters doing things that might embarrass the campaign. Both candidates accused the other of "flip-flopping." Conway's team erected a "Rand Paul's Waffle House" in the familiar yellow-and-black design and claimed he was waffling and flip-flopping on a number of issues. (Are waffling and flip-flopping the same thing? Not really.) Paul's campaign handed out flip-flops labeled "cap" and "trade" to draw attention to Conway's alleged backing away from his previous support for the "cap and trade" energy legislation. One thing you can say about the Fancy Farm Picnic, it's the best $10 meal you'll ever eat -- Kentucky pork and mutton, fresh-picked tomatoes and corn, and homemade pies and cakes. And one final thought: They estimate that 15,000 people attend the picnic but that only 2,000 listen to the political speeches, which is a good reminder of reality for us political junkies. And that estimate would seem to be confirmed by my reflection after the weekend that, except for the drive from Mayfield to Fancy Farm, I drove about 500 miles in Kentucky this weekend and I'm not sure I ever saw a campaign sign or bumper sticker. The election is still almost three months away, and politics just isn't life for most people.

This week's cover of the Economist warns of the state's growing involvement in industries, in countries from the United States to Europe to China. You could have heard many of the same concerns -- admittedly for a good bit more money -- two weeks ago at this year's Cato University summer seminar, "Confronting Grasping Government."

Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation denounces Judge Vaughn Walker for "extreme judicial activism" and "judicial tyranny" in striking down California's Proposition 8, which barred gay people from marrying. And of course he doesn't fail to note that Judge Walker sits in . . . San Francisco. Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries ups the ante: Judge Walker has "contempt for the rule of law" and is part of "the criminalization of not only Christianity but of the foundational values of civilization itself." National Review allows the head of the National Organization for Marriage to mutter about the judge's "personal bias." Blog commenters rail against the "left-wing liberal judge." In fact, Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan's term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. What was the hold-up? Two issues, basically. Like many accomplished men of the time, he was a member of an all-male club, the Olympic Club. Many so-called liberals said that should disqualify him for the federal bench. People for the American Way, for instance, said in a letter to Judiciary Committee chair Joe Biden, "The time has come to send a clear signal that there is no place on the federal bench for an individual who has, for years maintained membership in a discriminatory club and taken no meaningful steps to change the club's practices." The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics. Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination. In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice. Josh Green of the Atlantic notes a pattern: the federal judge in Boston who struck down a significant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that it denied gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples, was appointed to the bench by President Richard Nixon. And the chief judge of the Iowa Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous decision striking down that state's marriage ban was appointed by Republican governor Terry Branstad, who was just renominated for governor by Iowa Republican voters. Of course, Nixon and Branstad don't have the conservative cred of Reagan and Meese.