Mediaboss Marketing

Barack Obama was the invisible president. He was invisible simply because people refused to see him. Just as Ralph Ellisons unnamed narrator explained about his curious existence of permanent placement in the optical shadows, paranoiacs see him as a figure in a nightmare which the sleeper tries with all his strength to destroy. Meanwhile, the mind best at dilution, and absent the intellectual equipment to deal with the complexity of humanity, reduces Obama to a symbol. He becomes a statue, but unlike a stone construction with a face locked into hospitable expression, he has the capability to challenge the onlooker and uplift the observer, just as he has the potential to disappoint the viewer.

The protagonist of Invisible Man diagnoses those whose minds erase his human features and characteristics as suffering from a peculiar disposition of the eyes the inner eyes with which they look through their physical eyes upon reality. Psychologists would call the inner eyes consciousness. An individuated consciousness frames the focus of all experience, and instructs and guides, sometimes with the inscrutable properties of the best mystery, the individual how to receive and perceive everything. The election of Barack Obama a black man with an Arabic-rooted name after slavery and segregation, and at the height of cultural anxiety over Islam collided with the consciousness of many white Americans. Among the wreckage and in the casualty count, was the vision of the American public, and the capacity to rationally observe, absorb and interpret the president.

The beautiful and brutal story of American development, always in progress and often moving backward, differs from the Shakespearean statement of existential despair. It is not, as Macbeth understood life, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The linearity of American history is traceable only according to the expansion of freedom and the enlargement of liberty. In 1776, only white men who owned property could vote, the indigenous wore a target for expulsion and exploitation, and men who looked like Barack Obama qualified only for chains. Before Americans can pop champagne bottles in a celebration of themselves, they must realize that every inch of conquest for liberty and justice required a bitter and bloody war of collision. Whenever a group of Americans black, gay, female demand inclusion in the American experiment of self-governance, they face violent and vicious opposition.

The struggle of American history pitting the outsider, the underdog, the underclass against the powerful, wealthy, and often elected is the tale told, not by an idiot, but often to idiots idiots who make themselves ignorant with their refusal to open their eyes and see. The blindfold over the inner eyes is much too thick for the outer eyes to function properly. For millions of voluntarily blind Americans, the act of witnessing Barack Obama deliver his victory speech on November 4, 2008, shortly after the concession of an elderly, white war hero, caused post-traumatic stress disorder. They could no longer function as adults with clear eyes and clear thoughts. They would spend the next eight years speaking and acting as if they were habitual users of hallucinatory drugs seeing the ominous signs of conspiracy, destruction, and subversion in every wink, grin, and gesture of the alien occupying the Oval Office. They believed and propagated the idea that Obama was an agent acting to undermine America, and in some ways but not how they thought they were correct. Regardless of policy, and his policies were not outside the mainstream, Obama undermined the mythic America of perfection the shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan, Americas greatest contemporary mythmaker, boasted of by framing focus on reality; a reality that, despite its tragic and traumatic dimensions, maintains greater beauty and inspiration than the myth. Barack Obamas election was only unprecedented, and for many, unpredictable, because of Americas history of bigotry and oppression. To the Americans who tacitly approve of oppression, or choose to act as if it does not exist, Obamas victory sent a signal: Your story is not relevant.Your fantasy is no longer a believable story. It is not that America is or is not great, but that America must always strive to become great. The election of a black man, who would not have been able to vote just decades earlier, to the presidency is a significant hammer in the nail in the construction of greatness.

Many other Americans, while not as deranged and demented as those who saw in Obama a monstrous force of evil and subversion, diminished Obama as person, dispossessed him as president, and deracinated him into symbol. Because his mere victory was a revolutionary act of symbolic transformation at the height of American power, many voters believed that his presidency would possess revolutionary potential of equal power. Any imperfection in policy or rhetoric from President Obama would undermine this unrealistic faith claim, and expose him, in the debilitated inner eyes, as a fraud. To the sympathetic, but delusional, white liberal, Obama was not a normal human being. He was a blank screen waiting for them to project their fondest fantasies and deepest wishes. Any blemish on that screen would result in its destruction. Fallibility is intolerable to those searching for a messiah. Unrealistic expectations, due to an overinvestment in Obamas symbolic power, created conditions conducive to the eventual erasure of Obamas identity and achievements. A statue does not speak. So, it certainly will not utter words unfriendly to the desires of the onlooker. A statue does not move. It cannot walk in a direction unfamiliar to the observer.

Simultaneous with the reduction of Obama into symbol was the refusal of many voters and critics to acknowledge the value of symbol, and the power of the symbolic alteration of the American image Obama authored. What would it mean for black children to have their formative experiences as citizens with a black man as national leader, chief executive, and commander? What would it mean for white children? What would it mean for the Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants and natural born Americans who had names like Barack and Hussein? What would it mean for all of the adults in interracial marriages, and more consequentially, the children conceived within those unions?

These important questions hung in the air like a thick fog on a city street. Americans, risking an emotional crash, drove through with abandon, foot on the gas and hands steady on the steering wheel. White America had grown so accustomed to, and physically and spiritually invested in, white leadership of American institutions that it could not fully grasp the black hue of the White House. Obama shattered the ultimate glass ceiling, and among the shards of glass, were the broken fragments of white illusion. White superiority, and perhaps more importantly, white authority could no longer be taken for granted. While symbolism is insufficient for the task of political improvement, it is through symbol that human beings develop an understanding of their own stories.

When Obama took the oath of office, he shattered a symbol that, for many white Americans, was essential to their story, and replaced it with something from an area of American history previously kept undercover. That high level act has a low level application. It moves from pathos to the pavement. When I developed into adolescence and then early adulthood, it seemed entirely natural that the president, along with the mayor and the governor, always looked like my father, or my uncle, or like a much older version of myself. Michele Wallace, a black writer and professor, recalls the opposite experience as a school child in 1960s New York. She writes that she can still remember the stricken look on her teachers face when she announced that she wanted to become president when she grew up. For much of its history, the subtext of the adjective, American, was white. White is normal and universal, while other races and ethnicities require their own special days on the calendar, television networks, subgenres of literature, and university departments. Obamas ascension to the mountaintop of imperial and cultural command demolished all the natural assumptions of the American order. On night one, Obamas impact created too large of a crater in the collective consciousness of the citizenry for him to enjoy a normal presidency. The right wing, in their distortion of him into a monster, set him up to fail, but so did the left wing, in their hopes of him as a messiah. The moderates in the middle often seemed disconnected from the essence and existence of Obama, having arguments about the man they treated as a pedestrian on a crosswalk during an afternoon stroll.

An interesting and revealing criticism of President Obama grew increasingly popular among conservative commentators at around the midway point of the presidency. National Review, Fox News, and other familiar sources of right wing reportage began to brand and bash Obama as lazy and absentee for his reportedly unprecedented and excessive vacation and golf getaways. Those same outlets soon issued a similar indictment of Obamas refusal to host press conferences. Eventually, the mainstream media channeled the same story through their own, much louder amplifier, and the idea of Obama as a reclusive president has shaped public perception of his performance, with many Americans often commenting how they never saw him.

It turns out that Obama had taken fewer vacation days than any president since Jimmy Carter, and that he averaged two press conferences a month more than Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon, the same as Clinton, and slightly less than both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. The attack on Obamas absenteeism read like much more than mere partisan insult. In addition to playing on old stereotypes against black men, it also demonstrated the blindness of those who say it and believe it. They actually could not see Barack Obama. He was in the White House not on vacation and he was speaking to the press, but millions of Americans believed otherwise. They do not see him, because they cannot see him. They see only what their imaginations allow them to see, and from the vantage point of that odd and obstructed view, a postmodern mystery of politics emerges to haunt America in the 21st century: Does President Barack Obama exist?

Is the former President not the monster, messiah, or statue real? If so, who is he? What has he accomplished? What are his failures? What is his influence? How does he operate as symbol, and what is the substance of the man?

* * *

In the 21st century, America remains a riddle few people can figure out. Never a country with a clear or definitive character, it is the battleground for people attempting to negotiate and navigate the collision between two equally powerful and real stories of America. It is the story of domination and democracy. It is the story of repression and revolution. It is the story of exploitation and equality. It is the story of dogma and dialogue. It is the immigrant arriving at American shores with dreams of liberty and independence fueling him down the superhighways of commerce and bureaucracy. It is the American plane dropping bombs that decimates the city of that immigrants birth. As president, Obama contributed to both sides of the story. As a liberal reformer, he advanced the democratic and egalitarian side, always with an interest, even when it hurt him, in dialogue. As the commander-in-chief of an imperial military in the last gasp of empire, and as the face of political power, he also maintained the American tradition of dominion in foreign affairs. It is far too early to evaluate Obamas influence on the at once mighty and filigreed psyche of America. The ink of the tattoo hes made on American skin is not yet dry, and is not yet fully open to interpretation.

One of the few things that is certain is that the election of a living and breathing monument of multiculturalism, and a man who makes cheap puffery about diversity into magnificent reality a black, white, African, American is a triumph of the American story Walt Whitman put to poetry long before many others could develop the maturity and imagination to understand its wisdom. In Dreams from My Father, thirteen years before he would become president-elect, Barack Obama, articulated and advanced his own rendition of Whitmans anthemic song, the voice of democracy.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. In those words, I hear the spirit of Douglass and Delany, as well as Jefferson and Lincoln; the struggles of Martin and Malcolm and unheralded marchers to bring these words to life. I hear the voices of Japanese families interned behind barbed wire; young Russian Jews cutting patterns in Lower East Side sweatshops; dust bowl farmers loading up their trucks with the remains of shattered lives. I hear the voices of the people in Altgeld Gardens, and the voices of those who stand outside this countrys borders, the weary, hungry bands crossing the Rio Grande. I hear all of these voices clamoring for recognition, all of them asking the very same questions that have come to shape my life In the conversation itself, in the joining of voices, I find myself modestly encouraged, believing that so long as the questions are still being asked, what binds us together might somehow, ultimately, prevail.

The presidency of Obama irrespective of its policies and by the measure of its existence amplified the voice of democracy, and underscored the promise of its victory. There does exist the dream of the ties that bind withstanding the tornadic pull of ignorance and tribal hatred. The terms of unity often land with the thud of clich, but it is a clich worthy of faith. It is the clich that Obama elevated into poetry when he aced his national audition giving the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and it is the clich he embodied behind the presidential seal at the most prominent pulpit in the world. Millions of people on the political right and left could not accurately see Obama, because they cannot actually see America. It is a land of too much complexity and too many contradictions. Obama, like a literary invention Ellison could imagine, has become an archetypal representation of all of those contradictions a characterized capsule busting at the edges.

The election of Donald Trump signals to the world that many Americans are not yet prepared for the full implications of America. Walt Whitman sold precious few books in his lifetime. In his essay, Democratic Vistas, he worried that genuine belief had left American culture. In its place existed only the cold and quixotic comfort of career advancement and material advantage. Over a century later, America has transitioned from Barack Obama a learned, aspirational leader to a man who presents America as nothing more than career advancement and material advantage. It is important, now more than ever, to consider the possibility that the idea of America is too radical even for most Americans.

President Obama, not always politically, but culturally, more thoroughly captured the idea of America than any other modern president. Of all the unanswerable and intractable questions that surround the Obama presidency and legacy, one conclusion is unavoidable for anyone with the intellectual honesty to look into the dark corridors of a personal and political belonging to a nation with an identity in constant flux and turmoil. It is the same conclusion Ellisons narrator reached when he wrote, Our fate is to become one, and yet many This is not prophecy, but description. Thus one of the greatest jokes in the world is the spectacle of whites busy escaping blackness and becoming blacker every day, and the blacks striving toward whiteness, becoming quite dull and gray. None of us seems to know who he is or where hes going.

Barack Obama is invisible, because to see him would require that we all see ourselves. It would demand that we finally unmask the face we wear that is at once full of breathtaking beauty, but also irredeemably ugly.

See the rest here:
Barack Obama, invisible president: To truly see him requires white Americans to see themselves - Salon

George Santayana once said, Those who cannot remember the past are bound to repeat it, which cuts particularly deep this week for those who have been keeping up with the news. In America, communism is in on college campuses, the media is actively attempting to push us into a cold possibly hot war with Russia, and now we are contemplating whether or not a repeat of the Korean War is worth it. Its official, weve been thrown back to 1950 at least politically.

Its amazing how many people, given the overwhelming abundance of historical evidence against their case, will try to operate as if we havent dealt with our current predicaments before.

Libertarians have become rather well-versed with this line of reasoning, from the responses you get anytime you ask a collectivist where their theories have worked. That wasnt real [insert failed ideology]! theyll say, as they attempt to convince you to try some old-fashioned theory dressed up in a revamped, modern-day term. In 2016, for example, we had a self-described democratic socialist almost win the Democratic Partys nomination, if it wasnt for the party eating its own. Seeing students in America embrace a broken system with messianic zeal reveals just how blatant our regard for historical evidence has become.

And its the same story when you ask Republicans as well; just mention foreign policy. No matter which failed attempt at regime change you bring up, the neo-cons always seem to be convinced that this time will be different. Never mind the fact that when pressured into explaining why, the best response youll get will be Make America great again.

Whos to blame for this lack of basic historical knowledge though?

Is it our public education system, with their appalling literacy rates and test scores? Or perhaps its our media outlets, who openly claim its their job to scare people to death in order to push the narrative they want imposed. They successfully polarized both sides so extensively in the last election that our political sphere looks more like the 1850s than the 1950s in that respect.

In actuality, its all our faults, though. Anyone with an internet connection has the ability to learn history, yet the overwhelming majority do not.

Now, if you observe American politics through any sort of objective lens, it would appear as though George Orwells predictions have come true. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength was the mantra of the Party in the dystopian novel, 1984. Nowadays, Republicans are claiming to achieve peace from war; Democrats are espousing policies that say freedom will bring slavery; and everywhere, you see ignorance on both sides being rewarded as strength. Weve all heard the #FakeNews accusations being used on both sides. You mustnt let those other people tell you lies they like to say as the majority of Americans eat up the propaganda, leaving those of us who study history left to look on in horror.

Unless were willing to admit that some of the decisions made in the past were, in fact, mistakes, well sentence ourselves to suffer more loss of life in vain. Regardless of affiliation, lets allow ourselves to examine and consider the events of the past as they relate to our current situations. Because remembering history is crucial in making the correct political choices today. We may not be able to undo our mistakes, but we can certainly learn from them.

Lets embrace our history and stop pretending that any hot war, whether it be North Korea, Russia, or any of the superfluity of countries weve been involved in militarily the past 15 years will ever result in an improvement by any measurable account. Lets stop acting like more freedom for the individual in society will result in slavery for the rest of us. And for the love of God, lets recognize that collectivist attempts at egalitarianism never bear the results that they were supposed to on paper. This way we can spare our children from having to find themselves being thrown back into the political nightmare that 2017 has been fifty years from now. Lets get our act together, America.

Featured image: Encyclopdia Britannica

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

See the original post:
Welcome Back to 1950, America The Lowdown on Liberty - Being Libertarian

HotAir.com[This piece has been edited to correct Peter Singer's ideological orientation. Explanation at end of article.]

The "Google Memo" (read it here) raises at least two big questions from a specifically libertarian perspective: When does an employer have a right to fire an employee and how do social pressures work to shut down speech that makes powerful people uncomfortable?

The answer to the first question is pretty clear-cut, at least when talking about an at-will employee: Google (and other employers) should and do have extremely broad rights to fire any worker at any time. Exceptions rightly exist (and depending on the state one lives in, there may be fewer or more legal exceptions recognized by the courts) but they are narrow. Critics fear that at-will employment will result in chronic job instability, but no firm thrives over time by firing its workers on a regular basis and without good reasons (at-will employment also gives workers the not-insignificant ability to leave a situation without having to explain themselves or negotiate out of contractual obligations). The vast majority of Americans have never signed an employment contract (in nearly three decades of adult work, I know I never have) and are not the worse off for it.

Shortly before the memo's author was fired, Google's vice president of diversity, integrity, and governance wrote

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, "Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. 'Nuff said."

You might think that such values would have meant that James Damore, who penned the memo, might have been lauded for raising the issues he did, if not necessarily the way he did. Just earlier this year, at a shareholder meeting of Google's parent corporation Alphabet, chairman Eric Schmidt told an audience, "The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking."

But whether you agree with Google's specific decision in this case, there should be no question that it has the right to fire people. If a company does that consistently for arbitrary and unconvincing reasons (ranging from enforcing ideological consistency in non-ideological organizations to erratic management to whatever), it will have huge trouble attracting and keeping talent. But in a free society, every company should have the right to put itself out fo business through bad management practices.

James Damore says that his most-recent performance review at Google rated him as "superb, which is the top few percentile" at the company. Supporters of the firing say that nobody at the company would want to work with a person who publicly questioned the announced demographic diversity goals at Google, a fact belied by reports that "over half" of Google employees don't think he should have been let go. If his firing causes more morale problems than it solves, that's Google's problem and it shouldn't erode confidence in the system of at-will employment.

The second question raised by the Google Memodubbed "an anti-diversity screed" by Gizmodo, the site that posted it in its entirety apparently without reading itis a more-complicated and interesting topic from a libertarian point of view.

Damore titled his memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," and management's quick response to it underscores his titular implication, which is that political correctness has in many ways stymied any sort of good-faith conversation about issues touching on race, class, gender, and other highly charged topics. If libertarians instinctively only think about state power as worthy of critique, such a myopic perspective misses all the ways in which power asserts itself in society. As linguist Steven Pinker tweeted in response to Damore's firing, Google's hair-trigger response actually gives the supporters of President Donald Trump a juicy talking point in their war against the tyrannical ideological orthodoxy that Trump specifically said he was running against. From Pinker:

The situation is compounded by the fact that Damore's text is not in any sense the screed or rant that detractors call it. In fact, it starts with the statement, "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes" and continues

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.

The result is a discussion of possible causes, including genetic and cultural influences, for why Google's attempt to hire more women and minorities is going so badly despite massive and ongoing efforts to change that. I suspect that the real problem with the essay's logic (as opposed to, say, Damore's personality and reputation within Google, of which I know nothing) is calling attention to the costs and effectiveness of diversity programs along with their benefits, which are simply taken for granted. Additionally, he makes a plea for ideological diversity, which never turns out well in most places that say they value "diversity":

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

At Quillette, a website whose editor says suffered a denial-of-service attack after publishing stories critical of Google's actions, Rutgers psychologist Lee Jussim writes:

The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences....

This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs.

That last point is indisputable, as the more charitable negative assessments of Damore include only calling him a "shitball" and the like. And of course, the near-immediate firing of Damore, thus at least superficially proving his large point that Google's commitment to "freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking" is a joke.

Even self-described Marxists leftists [*: see below] such as Princeton philosopher Peter Singer have criticized Google for its actions:

On an issue that matters, Damore put forward a view that has reasonable scientific support, and on which it is important to know what the facts are. Why then was he fired?

Again, from a libertarian point of view, one traditional response to Singer's question would be: Who cares, it's none of our business what a private entity does because libertarianism is ultimately about relations between individuals and the state, not individuals and voluntary associations they make, including employment.

The Google Memo controversy reveals the limitations of such narrow or "thin" libertarianism. Political correctnesswhich is both the enforcement of an orthodox set of beliefs and the legitimization of any criticism of those beliefsis an attitude that is hardly limited only to state capitols, state agencies, and state universities. It exists everywhere in our lives and should be battled wherever we encounter it since it undermines free-thinking and free expression, the very hallmarks of a libertarian society. We have not just a right to criticize the actions of private actors but arguably a responsibility to do so, even if there is no public policy change being called for (Google should be allowed to fire whomever it wants, though its grounds for doing so are fair game for public discussion). Libertarianism is ultimately grounded not in anything like knowable, objective, scientific truths, but in epistemological humility built on (per Hayek and other unacknowledged postmodernists) a recognition of the limits of human understanding and that centralization of power leads to bad results. That is, because we don't know objective truths, we need to have an open exchange of ideas and innovation that allows us to gain more knowledge and understanding even if we never quite get to truth with a capital T. At the same time, we need to allow as many "experiments in living" (to use John Stuart Mill's phrase) as possible both out of respect for others' right to choose the life they want and to gain more knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Political correctness is not simply an attack a given set of current beliefs, it is an attack on the process by which we become smarter and more humane. That's exactly why it's so pernicious and destructive.

With that in mind, here's Penn Jillette in 2011 talking about why he's a libertarian. It's a provocative and persuasive argument, I think:

[*] Correction: I originally mistakenly tagged philosopher Peter Singer as a "self-described Marxist," which is wrong. Indeed, in 2000, as editor in chief of Reason magazine, I ran an interview of Singer to discuss his new book, A Darwinian Left, which argued explicitly that progressives must replace Marx with Darwin at the center of their worldview if they wanted to remain a viable force in political debates. I regret the error. Read the interview, conducted by Ronald Bailey, here.

Go here to read the rest:
The Google Memo Exposes a Libertarian Blindspot When It Comes To Power - Reason (blog)

WBIWNewslocal

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties

Updated August 11, 2017 5:27 AM|Filed under: Politics

(UNDATED) - The Libertarian Party of Indiana announces the installment of new leaders in several counties across the state. This continues the pattern of growth for the LPIN, even in an off-cycle year for elections.

LPIN State Chair Tim Maguire stated that the Party has installed new County Chairs in Jackson, Knox and Hendricks counties. Those roles have been filled by Erin Meadors, Micah Haynes and Eric Knipe respectively.

"We're continuing to experience a surge in activity all around the state," said Maguire. "After the 2016 election, we never saw new interest in the Libertarian Party dwindle. Through that desire for liberty from our citizens, we have been able to identify the excitement found in these new leaders. They are just a small portion of the former Republicans and Democrats that have realized that the old parties don't represent us anymore."

Micah Haynes, the new chair of the Knox County LP, can be reached via email at micahcoyhaynes@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (469) 600-1821. The Knox County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/KnoxCountyLP.

Eric Knipe, the new chair of the Hendricks County LP, can be reached via email at eric@ericknipe.com or by phone at tel: (317) 456-2297. The Hendricks County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/hendrickslp.

Erin Meadors, the new chair of the Jackson County LP, can be reached via email at erinmpyle@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (812) 271-1500. The Jackson County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/groups/165783433853863.

The first half of 2017 saw the expansion of Libertarian leadership in Carroll, Morgan, Montgomery and Jasper Counties.

Maguire went on to say that, "the Libertarian Party of Indiana is always looking for people interested in helping spread liberty by taking leadership roles in their community. I encourage anyone looking for a way to participate to reach out to me. We are excited about the possibility of working together with you."

Have a question or comment about a news story? Send it to comments@wbiw.com

Read more from the original source:
Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties - WBIW.com

After years of Republican demands that any increase in the federal governments borrowing limit be paired with corresponding spending cuts, leaders in Congress appear to lack the votes to pass those cuts, even with total GOP control in Washington.

White House officials have called on Congress to forgo a political fight and increase the debt limit by the Sept. 29 deadline without attaching any controversial legislation. That decision means alienating conservatives who have demanded spending cuts, likely forcing leaders to turn to Democrats to deliver the votes necessary to avoid default. That option may be the safest way to avoid economic fallout from the United States failure to pay its bills. But it also risks angering conservatives who view the decision as an unacceptable violation of a core political promise to cut spending.

For months, conservatives have said that they are willing to negotiate modest spending cuts that could be considered alongside the inevitable debt-limit increase. But those talks never began in earnest. Instead, GOP lawmakers have been reluctant to identify any specific cuts they believe could get the support of a majority of Republicans.

Instead, many Republicans have speculated that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will work with Democrats on a package that could tie the debt limit to other bipartisan legislation, such as extending health-care coverage for low-income children. The idea has conservatives fuming.

Its sort of absurd to think that there are not more domestic discretionary cuts that couldnt happen, but there isnt the political will do to that, said Dan Holler, vice president of the conservative group Heritage Action.

Its also the type of scenario where conservatives typically lose out, Holler said. Conservatives should not be on the losing end in such a traumatic way with a Republican president. I think its a real test of this Congress.

Holler and other conservatives worry that the debt limit will be one of several conservative losses next month, when Congress faces a number of pressing deadlines, including the one Sept. 29 to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. Many Republicans privately admit that they expect GOP leaders will rely on Democrats to pass a spending bill, as well.

Republican leaders were forced to turn to Democrats to pass a $1.1 trillion spending deal to avert a government shutdown in May after conservatives refused to support it. At the time, leaders said they would spend the next several months developing a budget that would increase military spending, cut domestic costs and reduce the federal deficit. But none of those plans have been realized.

Instead, Congress was focused on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Republicans viewed repealing the ACA as a critical first step in a dramatic overhaul of government spending by making permanent steps to rein in entitlement programs like Medicaid. But throughout the process Republicans struggled to back the plan, which would have gutted Medicaid and cut spending on a number of widely used health-care programs.

Ultimately, those fears are what killed the legislation, representing the clearest sign yet that some Republicans were not prepared to follow through on promises to cut spending.

Steve Bell, a former staff director for the Senate Budget Committee, said federal spending on domestic programs has been constrained for years and many of the remaining expenditures are on popular programs that even many conservatives dont want to touch for fear of angering voters.

The deficit hawks have been routed, Bell said. They will not touch Medicare, Medicaid nor Social Security despite recent warnings from the trustees, despite the absolute undeniable facts. As long as they shy away from that, all the rest of that is bluster and messaging.

The White House has signaled that it doesnt want to risk the possibility of another standoff when it comes to increasing the debt limit. Last month, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told members of the House Financial Services Committee that the White House would not push for spending cuts and would support a clean debt-limit increase.

There should be very strict controls of spending money, but once weve agreed to spend the money, we should make sure that the government can pay for it, Mnuchin said.

There had been concerns that Mnuchin might be at odds with other factions within the White House who were privately pushing President Trump to demand cuts and flirting with the idea of selectively paying off debts beyond September. Mnuchin dismissed that talk, saying his view represented the entire White House.

Congressional leaders have repeatedly vowed to address the debt limit soon after they return from August recess. In the House, members have 12 legislative days to pass the increase and nearly half a dozen other must-pass priorities like the spending bills all deadlines Ryan has vowed to meet.

House Republicans are discussing with the Senate and the administration, and we will act before the deadline, said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong.

Still, conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus say they want to work with Ryan on a plan to buck White House guidance and add modest spending cuts to a debt-limit vote.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and others have called on Ryan to cancel a planned mid-September break to stay in Washington and work out a plan for spending cuts. Jordan said the House has barely touched on the debt limit and members havent had a chance to see if a deal can be reached.

I think there could be the votes there, but we havent explored that. We all went home, Jordan said in an interview. When you go home you dont discuss it, but then say you dont have the votes. You didnt even try.

That lack of effort has been a frustration for many conservatives who worry they will be alienated from the negotiations, despite promises that leaders would pursue a deeply conservative agenda this year. Rep. Thomas Garrett (R-Va.) said Republicans should be held accountable for promises they made while campaigning, including passing spending cuts, even when theyre difficult.

We didnt put a clean debt- limit increase in front of [President Barack] Obama. Why would we do it now? Garrett said in an interview. The I-dont-want-to-do-anything-unpopular disease affects both parties.

Read more at PowerPost

See the original post:
Republicans may not have the votes for more spending cuts - Washington Post