Mediaboss Marketing

Since the heyday of the civil rights movement, Democrats have touted themselves as torchbearers of the Jeffersonian principles of individual rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered it axiomatic that the government should have strict limits and the rights of the individuals were not to be constrained. But Democrats have sadly shifted their priorities. The left wing increasingly favors intrusion in all aspects of American life and advocates policies diminishing personal rights in favor of state power and jeopardizing the social contract.

Joined by activist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign, liberals argued for years that the Christian right was coming to take away your personal autonomy. Slogans such as my body my choice underscored a powerful conviction that the government should not interfere with your ability to live your life as you see fit. From marriage to police surveillance and from abortion to free expression, Democrats gained votes by advertising themselves as the defenders of individual rights in this nation. For years, they could claim that title.

In the era after the demise of Jim Crow, the cultural and political left vastly expanded the reach and breadth of institutions and ideologies devoted to the protection of individuals rights and free will. Progressive intellectuals championed the moral imperatives of free speech and expression as keys not only to an effective academic environment but a thriving economy and polity. Universities represented our bastions of learning and debate. During the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, campuses brimmed with ideas to improve the nation and the world, many of which were wrong, but at least open for discussion. The American Civil Liberties Union had insisted on the fundamental right to speech even for the most odious of causes.

But times have certainly changed. Widespread calls for safe spaces, incessant demands of progressives to be comfortable, and constant disruptions of conservative talks on campuses have replaced the rallies championing the First Amendment. Airing an opinion about biological science, including one universally accepted throughout the entirety of human history barring the last five years, was startingly sufficient for author J.K. Rowling to be exiled from the realm of acceptable speakers. The advocacy of free market principles is even on the precipice of being deemed hate speech. Free speech has firmly given way to groupthink with a constant race to the bottom. Only the most woke survive in this heated political environment, to the detriment of healthy debate in our country.

All of this leads the Democratic candidates competing for 2020 and their counterparts in Congress to increasingly become nanny staters. Against the First Amendment are proposals to restrict the use of money to affect policy under Democratic proposals to constrain lobbying, shut down free speech under Democratic proposals ostensibly aimed at hate speech but which really aim to shut down conservative speech, and reduce the ability to exercise religious conscience under Democratic proposals to strip churches of tax exempt status. Little remains of leaving people free to run their own lives. Instead, the new doctrine is more related to the idea that everything is political. All within the state and nothing outside the state, is not just a frightening concept on its own, but effectively an unintentional carbon copy of the core philosophy of Benito Mussolini.

While Republicans are certainly not perfect on civil liberties by any means, the strong libertarian streak that runs through the party still demonstrates itself in many ways. Although President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE is a flawed messenger for the argument that Americans should be left to simply pursue their own best interests, he is actively working to move power from the Washington swamp back to the states and to your wallet. If Trump is not good enough on civil liberties for your appetite, the reality is Democrats are far worse.

Their proposals are straight from the Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter days of seeking to fix everything through federal mandates. Elizabeth Warren wants to set up a series of government funded daycare centers that not only will cost taxpayers $70 billion, but will also replace traditional family bonds with the state. There is no more basic right than familial autonomy, which would sink away if such plans were enacted into law. Bernie Sanders pushes more extreme ideas, opposing the ability for homeowners to control their own dwellings. As the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg is most remembered by the long list of activities he chose to ban, from large sodas to styrofoam packaging to loud music.

These are not policies of a civil liberties party. They are inducements to relinquish our autonomy to Washington. Anyone who believes that is a fair trade is marching the nation down the road to serfdom. As Gerald Ford famously declared, A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and an analyst for Young Americans for Liberty. She is an author whose latest book is How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off. Follow her on Twitter @KristinBTate.

Read the original here:
Republicans are the party of civil liberties as Democrats walk away | TheHill - The Hill

Mayor Joe Hogsett, left, and Sen. Jim Merritt participated in an IBJ/Indy Chamber debate moderated by then-IBJ reporter Hayleigh Colombo. Hogsett won the mayor's race easily. (IBJ photo/Eric Learned)

Despite no state or federal elections in 2019, Indianapolis and its suburbs made plenty of political news. Voters across the state cast ballots in municipal elections, re-electing Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett plus three Hamilton County mayors. The year also brought plenty of 2020 news.

With nearly 72% of the vote, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett easily won a second term leading the Circle City. Republican State Sen. Jim Merritt challenged Hogsett, running on what he saw as Hogsetts shortcomings: not moving the needle enough on potholes and violent crime. But Merritt lost by more than 44percentage points. In his victory speech, Hogsett said theres still plenty of work to do.

Democrats on the Indianapolis City-County Council already hold a majority, but in 2020, that majority will grow even larger. Democrats picked up six seats from Republicans, bringing their majority to 20-5. Among Republican casualties were council veterans Minority Leader Mike McQuillen andJanice McHenry.

Styron

Political newcomer Emily Styron, a Democrat, beat Republican incumbent Tim Haak to become Zionsvilles third mayor. She has said the towns lack of a successful track record for economic and community development led her to step forward as a candidate. Styron has been critical of progress made in Creekside Corporate Park, where development hasbeen slow since the town invested more than $4.5million in infrastructure improvements to attract corporate businesses.

In Hamilton County, Democrats won their first seats ever on two city councils: two spots in Fishers and one in Carmel. In Fishers, Jocelyn Vare and Samantha DeLong displaced Republican incumbents. In Carmel, Miles Nelson beat a Republican in a newly formed district.

Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness and Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard won their Republican primaries and were unopposed in the general election. Republican Westfield Mayor Andy Cook won in the general election over Libertarian Donald Rainwater. Noblesville voters chose Republican Chris Jensen in the primary; he was unopposed in the general election to succeed retiring Mayor John Ditslear.

Next year, the Westfield City Council will experience a dramatic shakeup when five new members take office. In the Republican primary, voters ousted three incumbents and elected candidates endorsed by the Fiscal Conservatives of Hamilton County, meaning spending in the growing city could be curtailed in coming years.

In June, Indiana U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, a Republican who has represented Indianas 5th Congressional District since 2013, announced she would not seek a fifth term. Brooks said she was looking forward to spending more time with her family. Democrats see the open seat as a possible pickup in 2020.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the race for president, joining a crowded field of Democrats seeking the partys nomination. Early on, Buttigieg had been considered a long shot, but by November, he had risen to the top of the pack in an Iowa poll, where the nations first nominating contest will take place, on Feb. 3. Since April, hes raised more than $44million, according to reports.

See original here:
2019 YEAR IN REVIEW: Big year for Hogsett, Buttigieg and Dems in Boone, Hamilton counties - Indianapolis Business Journal

To the liberal administrators and Democratic politicians who try to blame skyrocketing college costs on decreases in government support, rather than administrative waste and government loans, I hate to say I told you so. But I absolutely told you so.

My first op-ed ever professionally published was in the Boston Globe, titled, Students pay the price for a culture of waste at UMass. A student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst at the time, I took campus officials to task after yet another tuition hike, decrying the fact that only about half the school's $1.2 billion 2016 budget was spent on education or financial aid, much of the rest lost due to profligate waste and in the whirlwind of rent-seeking and cronyism known as higher education administration.

I also pointed out how administrative salaries at UMass had skyrocketed in recent years, growing far faster than the student population.

The response? Campus leadership called me a liar and threatened to sue the newspaper. This, of course, might have something to do with the fact that UMass Amhersts chancellor, Kumble Subbaswamy, earns almost $600,000 a year and that 97 out of 100 of the state of Massachusettss highest-paid employees worked for the university system. The vitriolic backlash and denial of all responsibility is par for the course.

Despite documented evidence and ample research showing the effect administrative bloat and subsidized government loans have had on the skyrocketing tuition rates, many liberals deny it all and insist that pouring more taxpayer dollars into the university system, or socializing it altogether, is the only solution. Yet new research reveals this argument for the bunk narrative it always was.

In the book Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America, economist Richard Vedder reports, If the ratio of campus bureaucrats to faculty had held steady since 1976, there would be 537,317 fewer administrators, saving universities $30.5 billion per year and allowing student tuition to decrease by 20%. Per Max Edens recent review, Vedder's work also finds "colleges have bloated up on bureaucrats and spend an ever-decreasing share now about one third of their expenditures on instruction. This makes it perfectly clear once and for all that if campuses didnt waste so much on administration, higher education would be much more accessible and affordable than it is now.

Dont expect the liberal narrative to adjust in any meaningful way, though.

A sensible path to making college more affordable has always been offered up by some conservative and libertarian intellectuals, and it has even been put into practice in a few real-world examples, such as Mitch Daniels's reforms at Purdue University. Through a combination of cutting back administrative bloat, ending wasteful spending, and scaling back federal loans that cause tuition price inflation, we know how we can make college reasonably affordable again.

See the article here:
New data proves what's actually causing the spike in college tuition rates - Washington Examiner

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

See the article here:
Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

Thanks, Obama. Photo: Pedro Santana/AFP via Getty Images

The Obama era produced the most sweeping combination of social reforms, economic rescue, and regulation of any presidency in half a century. For that reason, the left finds it necessary to transform Obamas successes into failures if Obamas methods made the world a better place, they can be replicated, but if they failed, the only alternative is either reaction or a Sandersian political revolution. The left-wing New Republic has a new series of pieces repeating what is now a familiar indictment of Obama liberalism: The Collapse of Neoliberalism, by Ganesh Sitaraman, A Decade of Liberal Delusion and Failure, by Alex Pareene, and The Hell That Was Health-Care Reform, by Libby Watson.

It is obviously true that Obamas success was tempered both by sometimes flawed decisions and, to a much greater degree, the systems limited ability to bear change. Many of Obamas most successful measures were designed to set the stage for expansion and improvement later on. No reforms in American history, from emancipation to the New Deal, have yielded uncomplicated triumph. Viewed up close, they are all the same grueling half-measures weighed down by compromises with odious forces, and all had to survive right-wing backlash that denied anything that felt like victory.

There are surely cautionary tales to be drawn from Obamas experience. But in its haste to bury both Obama and liberalism, TNRs authors downplay the scope of his success. (While understandably short of comprehensive, their assessment completely omits such enormous reforms as the bank rescue, auto bailout, green-energy subsidies, energy-efficiency and pollution regulations, DACA, the Iran nuclear deal, the Cuba opening, and ending the ban on gays in the military.) Most important, they barely acknowledge, and utterly refuse to grapple with, the barriers Obama and his allies had to overcome.

Sitaramans account leans heavily on the neoliberal epithet, so that the bitter struggle between Obamas liberalism and Paul Ryans conservatism is erased, and the two sides retroactively transformed into capitalist allies. In Sitaramans account of the economic-rescue effort, the stimulus created itself and Obamas contribution was to chafe at its size and scale it back. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand, he writes. President Barack Obamas advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era and on top of that, they compromised on its content.

Reading this bizarre account, one would have no idea Obama actually fought to enact what he believed was the largest stimulus Congress was willing to pass and that the compromises were demanded by senators who supplied the pivotal votes. One might argue, as I have, that Obama could have coaxed even more stimulus out of Congress with a more clever strategy. Instead, Obama liberalism is retconned as somehow working to shrink the stimulus.

Their account of Obamacares creation likewise erases the staggering array of forces upholding the status quo. Generations of liberal health-care experts have concluded that, in a perverse path of dependency, the employer health-insurance deduction has turned the 160 million Americans with employer-provided insurance into advocates for the status quo. After literally decades of failure, from Truman to Johnson to Clinton, Obama & Co. built around the employer system by creating regulated, subsidized markets for those trapped in a dysfunctional individual market.

Pareene asserts they should have simply put everybody on a government plan: By far the most effective part of the Affordable Care Act, in terms of helping Americans get care, was simply expanding Medicaid, he writes. And a decade into the ACA, it has become more apparent than ever that the best way to reduce Americas absurd health-care costs would simply be a single-payer program. Of course, simply making everybody in the individual market eligible for Medicaid would have required enormous tax increases and caused tens of millions of Americans to be dumped off their employer coverage. The political difficulty of doing so can be seen by Elizabeth Warrens frantic race to distance herself from a single-payer plan she endorsed in an effort to woo the Bernie Sanders vote. That this simple solution is not even apparent to a progressive like Warren after a couple months of having to defend it ought to indicate that the Obama administration had sensible reasons for taking the course it did.

Watson, for her part, will grudgingly credit Obama only for failing spectacularly so that the sainted Sanders could succeed where he failed:

The complete shift in how we talk about health care going from Democratic institutions describing how uninsured people game the system for free health care to even moderate Democrats acknowledging the gap in the ACA by proposing a public option, and a majority of the country supporting a single government insurance plan is remarkable. This is thanks, in large part, to a grumpy old socialist from Vermont, who took on the partys anointed establishment hacks to champion Medicare for All, pushing this more radical policy idea toward the mainstream. But none of this would have been possible without the ACAs failure to achieve its goal of making health care either affordable or universal. Thanks, Obama.

Does a majority of the country favor single payer? Earlier people did express support for it, but opposition has grown and now slightly exceeds support. Even earlier polls that did show support relied on omitting several concrete elements, all of which are toxically unpopular: moving people off employer-sponsored insurance and covering undocumented immigrants. The only plan the left has come up with to surmount these obstacles is pretend they dont exist and, perhaps, accuse people who acknowledge them of being profiteers, ghouls, neoliberals, and so on.

Sitaraman asserts that Obamas ideology has collapsed, and people around the world have recognized that the world of the 1980s has changed and that it is time for a new approach to politics. Yet somehow Obama left office with a 60 percent approval rating, and Jeremy Corbyn received less than one-third of the popular vote while being trounced, so perhaps it is just a little more complicated.

The next Democratic president probably wont be burdened with an economy undergoing the most rapid free fall since the Great Depression. But he or she will have to grapple with a Senate that massively overrepresents Republicans, courts stacked with right-wing judicial activists, and thermostatic public opinion that turns skeptical of government when Democrats hold the presidency. It would be edifying for the left to work out its own strategies nothing would be more helpful to liberals than a powerful left that could reposition its ideas in the center. But that kind of work is difficult. Choosing to reside in a fantasy world, in which all the problems have simple solutions that we need but grasp hold of, is so much more pleasant.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

The rest is here:
Does the Left Have Any Better Ideas Than Obamas? - New York Magazine