Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

How the right claimed liberty and made it a toxic word – New Statesman

The frequent appeals to personal liberty made by anti-maskers and lockdown sceptics make a depressing addition to the Covid debate for anyone on the left who believes inliberty.It isnt just that those appeals dont add up to a very good argument. Its that a small group on the libertarian right (and assorted contrarian types who havejoined their ranks) have claimed the word liberty for themselves, degrading its meaning to suit their own ends.

But we've been here before.Duringthecholera outbreaks of the 19th century,therewasalsoastrident minority resisting the rules brought in to save lives, often by means of invoking liberty. (There were conspiracy theories then, too, one of which claimed that elites had released cholera to cull the poor;thisisprobably worth rememberingevery time you read about 5G or mysterious Chinese labs.)

What's interestingisthat the basisfor the public health measures put in place at the end of that century and afterwards was provided in part by John Stuart MillsOn Liberty, whichbecameaclassic text on the subject.According to Mills harm principle, liberty may be suspended if its expression harms someone else. TheDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which laid out the values of the French Revolution, said much the same thing 70 years before.But though the lockdown sceptics arguments have beendiscredited,we still find ourselves in a semantic muddle. Andthereason for this is that many on the left have granted those self-described libertarians the exclusive right to define liberty, by forgetting or neglecting the libertarian strands of their own tradition, as well as their defenders.

[See also:Why lockdown sceptics should accept the overwhelming case for restrictions now]After all, libertyisn't the preserve ofthe right.Manygreat thinkersonthe left Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Herbert Read fuseda respect for liberty with a concern for social justice. You might even mention Gore Vidal, or Christopher Hitchens, whose libertarian leanings stayed with him throughout his political life.Defending (and, indeed, demanding) civil liberties was once a defining principle of the left.Bound up with itwas aleftist defence of liberty that differs starkly from the absolute variant on themodernlibertarianright. Orwell, invoked by the right whenever absolute free speech is questioned, wrote that there always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. According to the leftist tradition, liberty may be (and often is) put to one side in pursuit of another cause: Freedom without equality is exploitation, as Rosa Luxemburg put it. To defend liberty, in other words, is not to give up your critical faculties, your common sense, or your regard for others. It isnt to become an evangelist for unbridled individualism.It's just to respect personal freedom and agency in the context of wider society.

And yet, turned over to sundry contrarians and the fringes of the libertarian right, inside and outside parliament, untrammelled individualism is what the word is now associated with. Liberty a political construct, used synonymously with but distinct from freedom is coming to mean a kind of absolute, do-whatever-you-like autonomy that has no regard for the harm that autonomy might do to others. On that view, being told you're not allowed to swing an axe into someone's face would be an attack on liberty. This is obviously ridiculous, but the fact is thatthe left has allowed a small group on theright to give liberty whatever meaning it likes.This isnt just an academic point. The lefts desertion ofliberty as an idealhas some dispiriting real-life consequences. There has been weak opposition from the left to the roll-out of warrantless mass surveillance as well as its means, much of it fraught with bias thathas very real consequences for social justice. The news over the summer that the right to peaceful protest might be restricted was met with little more than a shrug. (The architect of thatplan, theHome Secretary, Priti Patel, described the Black Lives Matter protests as currently unlawful due to Covid-19.) And one cant help but feel that the news the government has reportedly dropped its plans to let people define their own gender might have provoked a stronger reaction if a zeal for social justice could have been fused with an appeal to liberty.As for the pandemic,a nuanced critique of the Coronavirus Act from across the spectrum has been lacking.Those who would think of themselves asliberalhave been silent, despite the criminalisation of many forms of human behaviour without real debate, to be ratified retrospectively. Perhaps this is necessary in this case, but the lack of opposition sets a dismal precedent.As it is, the word liberty has been left to those who gleefully tweet photos of themselvessansmasks. That's something the left should findoff-putting. Compassion and a real emphasis on the common good are necessary during a crisis such as the pandemic. But that doesnt condemn the idea of liberty to meaninglessness or irrelevance.

[See also: Richard Seymour on why the hard right fought against lockdown]

Harry Readhead is a member of the advocacy group Liberty.

The rest is here:
How the right claimed liberty and made it a toxic word - New Statesman

What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. – USAPP American Politics…

In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the partys 2016 election result.Jeffrey MichelsandOlivier Lewiswrite that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to beking makersin the 2020 election, their dislike of DonaldTrump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

In the 2016 US Presidential election,the former RepublicanGovernor of New Mexico,Gary Johnsongained3.3 percentof the national vote share,the highest on record foraLibertarian Partypresidential candidate.This modest milestonecould have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump andformer Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton. But itmightalso haveportendeda more meaningful movement inUSelectoral politics,onein which a growing Libertarian Party or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters gainsthecriticalmass totip the race.Infiercely competitive bipartisancontests, protests voterscould position themselvesaspower brokers.

When we entertained this possibilityduring the primary season,plenty ofsigns were pointing toanother strongresult for the LibertarianParty.The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relativelyradicalcandidateslike Senators Elizabeth Warren and BernieSanders,who were proposinga new pushofstateintervention in the economyanathemaof courseto libertarian ideology.Meanwhile,Trumps dominanceofthe Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbents brand ofblunt nativism.And the one RepublicanHouse Representative, JustinAmash,whodiddare questionthisdominanceand in doing so became a minorcult hero threw in his hatfor the Libertarian Party ticket.

But then, alotchanged. Democratsrallied behindmoderateformer Vice-President Joe Biden, while LibertarianschoseJo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the partybuta strangerbeyond it.TheCOVID-19 pandemicthenrenderedimpossible thein-personcanvassingnecessaryto raise Jorgensens profile. And itleftlittle place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, thequestionwasnot whethergovernment interventionwasjustifiable, butratherhow much and what kind was needed.

As a result,inLibertarian candidatesfinished withjust under 1.2 percentof the vote in the 2020 election, losingnearlytwo-thirdsof theirsharecompared to 2016.

Did the2020setbackconfirm that theLibertarian spike of2016wasnot asignbut a fluke?Looking at the bigger picture,was it rash to consider thatlibertarianvoterscould becomekingmakersin US Presidentialelections?

One straightforwardresponsewas put forthimmediately after the electionbycommentatorsandpoliticianswho argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, spoiling a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgensons ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.

Thisspoiler argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and moregenerallyvoterswhoseidentificationwithlibertarian valuesrivals their loyalty toany particular party, belong, in the end,totheGOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false thatprovides a key to answering the questions set out above.TheRepublican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could pushthelions share of these same voters into the enemy camp,assuringits defeat.

Indeed, the story of 2020 is not the number of those who turned to the Libertarian ticket, but those who turned away from it, in favour of the Democrats.Among theeightmillion peoplewho voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 (half of which voted for the Libertarian Party), an overwhelming majority sided with Biden in 2020.The main indicator is thatwhile Trumps 2020 results are similar to those of 2016,Bidens are much better than Clintons in 2016.Some of these not-Clinton-but-yes-Biden votersmight be new votersor former Republicans, butexit poll surveyscorroborate the hypothesis that a significant number of 2016 Libertarian voters opted for Biden in 2020.

They did this despitethe fact thatJoe Bidenscareerrecord andelectoralcampaignstillpresenteda number of red flags for libertarians.Mostnotably, heproposedwhat could be become the mostambitious planof government spending in decades.But these concerns were evidently outweighed by the prospect of another four years of a Trump presidency. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, as onelibertarian commentatorput it, its situational, and that situation ends on January 20.

The 2020 elections showed then that theblocfrom 2016is still there and is still important, but that itspotential to determine electionscomes fromswingingfrom one party toanotherinstead of settling onand leveragingits own.

Unfortunately for libertarian-minded voters, thisleavesthem with onlyrelatively pooroptionsin future elections. There is apossibilitythat many of them will turn back to the Republican Party once it puts forth a less offensive candidate. ButtheGOPwill likely remain in thrall of thebloc that Trump forged,a bitter reality for libertarians whojust a decade ago seemed totake the reinswiththesuccess of theTea Party movement.The Democratic Party will surely keep some of the votes it won from this bloc as well.But the pressure to placate its far-left wing will likely outweigh its desire to permanently win over the moderate libertarians. And for the Libertarian Party to beanything more than a last resort,it wouldhave to prove itself capable of exactly that which it failed to do this election: rally this bloc under a common banner with a shared strategy, in so doing convincing mainstream parties that it cannot be ignored.

In the next Presidential election, theblocs voteswill likely be dividedbetween thesethree options,weakening theefficacyof eachand likelystokinga fourth option:abstention.

There is aparadox that limits the blocs potential.The same characteristics that predispose libertarians to be swing voters their pride in rational, independent behaviour,and their resistance to organised politics,if not outrightanarchism also makes them unlikely tocoordinate their actionon a large scale to optimallyleverage this position.Perhaps they could rally together through another groundswell movement like the Tea Party, not a totally fantastic scenario considering that resistance to governmentspending and restriction ofcivil liberties willsurely mount as Covid-19 recedes. Butcould this feed into an independent forcethat would break thetwo-party doom loop,withoutbeing co-opted by the general anti-establishment rage buoying the Republican Party?

Instead,Libertarian Party and independent libertarian voterswill havetosettle forgettingcreative andpickingsmallerstrategically placedbattles. We have alreadyobservedthis inthe elections for Senate, where libertariancandidates in Georgiahelped toforce two run-offs, the results of which will decide the majority. Therun-offsarestillmostly alose-losefor libertarians, butthereissurely athrill in throwinga spanner in the workingsof the major parties, especially if thisincitesthe opposition to offermore libertarian policies.AsLibertariancandidatein Georgia Shane Hazelnoted:I hope people understand that creating a run-off should be the primary mission until the party is much stronger.

Of course, the Libertarian Party can also think global, act local. In Wyoming,Marshall Burtbecame the first Libertarian to win a statehouse seatsince 2002, andthe fifthin US history. Via its Frontier Project, the Libertarian Party hopes to wina fewmore state-level seatsinNorth and South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin.There is also the possibility of winning more specific, less party-political ballots,viareferendums.In 2020,many referendumspassed seemingly libertarianproposals ondrugs, taxes, rent, voting rights,ranked-choice voting,andlabour regulations.Californian referendumsare a prime example of this, butAlaskaandColoradoare also interesting cases.

The questionofwhether the Libertarian Party or a bloc of libertarian voters emerges as a swing factor andkingmakerin future US elections will depend on the success of a project to carve a common identity and settle on a shared strategy.They could do this autonomously with their own party or by fitting into a spaceleft by one of themainstream parties.But neitherscenarioappears likely in the short-term,meaningthe battle for libertarian values will likely be waged where it has been waged best,far from the centreofthebiggestelectoral stage.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/34EqYVU

Jeffrey MichelsCollege of EuropeJeffrey Michels is a Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament and an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe,Natolincampus.

Olivier LewisCollege of EuropeOlivier has been a Research Fellow at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, since August 2019.Olivier is currently writing his first book,Security Cooperation between Western States, to be published with Routledge. He is also working on shorter publications related to counterterrorism, counterinsurgency,and Brexit.

View post:
What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. - USAPP American Politics...

Judicial review in NY-22 congressional race on hold until next year – Utica Observer Dispatch

New Yorks 22nd Congressional District will not have a representative when the next session of Congress begins Jan. 3.

The final hearing in 2020 of the judicial review of the congressional race wrapped up in Oswego County Supreme Court with some questions left unanswered. The case will not resume until after the state court systems recess is over Jan. 4.

The results in the race between U.S. Rep. Anthony Brindisi and Republican Claudia Tenney have not been certified, more than seven weeks after Election Day. Its the only House of Representatives race without certified results.

Among the unfinished issues in the judicial review is the ongoing canvass of administratively rejected ballots in Oneida County. The ballots are being canvassed under a Dec. 8 order from state Supreme Court Justice Scott DelConte.

The latest update on the Oneida County affidavit count, from Wednesday morning, had a total of 847 ballots reviewed, including 253 on Monday and 594 on Tuesday. The county board of elections still had 950 ballots to canvass.

Of those recently canvassed ballots, 237 have been included in the preliminary count. The numbers presented Thursday morning gave Brindisi 125 votes additional votes,92to Tenney and nine to Libertarian candidate Keith Price, with no votes on the remaining 11 ballots.

The current, overall unofficial results now edge to Brindisi, giving the incumbent a 14-vote lead. Tenney previously led by 19 votes; its the second time Brindisi has taken a narrow lead in the unofficial and incomplete count.

During Wednesdays proceedings, DelConte ordered the Madison County Board of Elections to correct timestamp errors on ballots received on Election Day, but timestamped Nov. 4. Employees, including both commissioners, at the countys board of elections testified they did not receive any ballots by hand after Election Day.

Madison County Board of Elections Republican Commissioner Mary Egger reiterated testimony that affidavit and absentee ballots received at polling sites were secured in the county jail, then brought to the board of elections offices Nov. 4. The ballots, which were sealed on Election Day, were then timestamped.

A total of 119 ballots would need to be corrected based on the timestamp error, per DelContes order. A Madison County Sheriffs deputy arrived at 3:30 p.m. to return the ballots to the board of elections to make the corrections, which will be completed before the candidates or their representatives.

The judicial review for ballots in Chenango County continued, with attorneys for both candidates arguing the validity of ballots based on stray marks, dropoff locations and other discrepancies. At the end of Wednesdays hearing, DelConte called a halt to the Chenango County review, to be resumed Jan. 4.

The court has yet to review any contested ballots from Broome and Oneida counties. Even once the campaign attorneys have argued their cases in court, DelConte will need to make rulings on hundreds of contested ballots before there is a final count in the race.

Read more from the original source:
Judicial review in NY-22 congressional race on hold until next year - Utica Observer Dispatch

The Books We Read in 2020 | Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute

The Wall Street Journal asked people of some prominence to name the best books they read in 2020. So I asked my colleagues. Honestly, I like this list better. Of course, we all recommend the books Cato published this year. But we read more widely, and here are some of our favorites:

The Little House By Virginia Lee Burton - This children's story tracks our heroinea well-built, 19th-century country home enjoying the stars at night and the changing seasonsas modern urban life creeps closer, surrounds her, and takes her land, her enjoyment of nature, and everything else. After skyscrapers have expropriated every inch of her once-peaceful hillside, a family finds the little pink house sad and lonely and, in contempt of modern permitting and historical preservation laws, manages to quickly load her onto a truck and return with her to the countryside. Perfect for ages 1-9.

--David Bier, immigration policy analyst

Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live by Nicholas A. Christakis MD PhD (a recent McLaughlin Lecturer at Cato). A very timely overview of the pandemic, touching on a whole host of aspects of the crisis (though not much economics).

The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, by Joseph Henrich. A very provocative thesis that suggests that church-pressured social changes in who it was acceptable to marry (not cousins) and then Protestant churches emphasizing individual interpretation and reading provided the foundations for the psychology that allowed individual rights, democracy, markets, and innovation to flourish.

--Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics

Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety; by Eric Schlosser (Penguin, 2013). Investigative reporter Eric Schlosser explores the harrowing history of fatal mishaps and near-catastrophes in America's nuclear arsenal, culminating in the explosion of a fully armed Titan ICBM in its silo in Damascus, Arkansas in 1980. Widely heralded upon its publication in 2013, Command and Control was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and was the source material for an Oscar-shortlisted PBS documentary of the same name. With a mix of dark humor and painstaking attention to detail, Schlosser explains how the appearance of safety and security surrounding nuclear weapons was always more illusion than fact. The book follows nuclear weapons designers and engineers as they sought to raise the alarm and adopt more stringent safety features from the Manhattan Project to the modern era. It explains how on several occasions America came perilously close to suffering an accidental nuclear detonation, often avoided only by dumb luck. The risk is still real today, and Command and Control offers a compelling libertarian lesson on the fallibility of human institutions and the dangers of assuming government competence.

--Andy Craig, staff writer

I read Animal Farm to the kids. It surprised me how relevant it remains. Now every time someone defends ObamaCare, I hear Squealer: Surely, comrades, you dont want discrimination against preexisting conditions back?

--Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies

I thoroughly enjoyed Kristin Kobes Du Mezs Jesus and John Wayne. As someone raised in a fundamentalist Protestant household and who still identifies as an evangelical, I found it to be an illuminating study of how early to mid-20th century cultural norms shaped Christian views of masculinity and ultimately energized a particular set of gendered politics.

--Paul Matzko, assistant editor for tech and innovation, Libertarianism.org

Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie is a wonderful book about the systemic failures in scientific institutions that lead to bad science, the spreading of wild unproven hypotheses, and mass public ignorance about the topic. His proposed solutions wont work as he doesnt seriously contemplated how to change the incentives of scientists, but his examination of the problem is masterful and funny.

--Alex Nowrasteh, director of immigration studies

The most interesting book Ive read this year is Michelle Corsons Freedom of Motion: Working Families and the Transportation Revolution. After a successful career in commercial real estate development, Corson decided to focus on solving complex social problems using creative financial tools. She soon learned that if a low-income person with poor credit could buy a really good car, something relatively new that wouldnt break down, with a warranty, and had the opportunity to get some financial coaching, they were able to get better jobs, build financial stability, and gain a path to economic mobility. But banks charge such people up to 20 percent interest on car loans. Corson started On the Road Lending, which gives people low-interest car loans along with basic financial training. As this book shows, auto ownership has greatly improved the lives of her clients. On the Road Lending now operates in four different states. Though published in 2017, On the Road Lendings annual reports since then show that it continues to successfully help people get out of poverty.

--Randal O'Toole, senior fellow

I read Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child. Stuck at home for so long, one has to expand one's kitchen offerings!

--Khristine Brookes, vice president for communications

Andrew McAfees More from Less is an environmental book with two twists: its optimistic and pro-market. Using real-world examples and extensive data on U.S. metals, fertilizer, wood products, and fuels, McAfee convincingly shows that technological progress and capitalism have not only made us more prosperous, but also sparked dematerialization the use of fewer natural resources to make more and better stuff. As he puts it, [t]he fuel of interest in in eliminating costs was added to the fire of the computer revolution, and the world began to dematerialize.

--Scott Lincicome, senior fellow

The best book I read this year is First, the biography of Justice Sandra Day OConnor by Evan Thomas. Rather than just a review of her jurisprudence based on her published opinions, the book goes behind the scenes with extensive excerpts from the journals of both Justice OConnor and her husband. It also features many observations from Justice OConnors law clerks and close friends. Its a fascinating account of how Justice OConnor rose to become the first woman on the Supreme Court through a combination of extremely hard work, intelligence, pragmatism, a keen sense for politics, and some key moments of good luck. The story of her appointment also presents a remarkable contrast to the much more arduous vetting process that occurs today.

--Thomas A. Berry, research fellow

The Last Days of Night by Graham Moore: This historical fiction centers around the legal battles between George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison over the lightbulb, as told by Westinghouses boy genius lawyer Paul Cravath. The characters are well-drawn, including the late 1880s New York City setting, and it hews close enough to fact to provide a good education on the battle between alternating and direct current. Who knew patent litigation could be so exciting?

--Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulation studies

The most fascinating book I read in 2020 was a novel published back in 1708 by Simon Ockley: "The Improvement of Human Reason: Exhibited in the Life of Hayy Ibn Yaqzan (Full text available here.) This was the English translation of an Arabic novel penned much earlier, in the late 12th century, by Ibn Tufayl, an Aristotelian philosopher from Muslim Spain. It was a philosophical novel in fact, probably the earliest philosophical novel ever written which insinuated that human reason could discover all the secrets of the universe, even without the guidance of religion. This was a revolutionary if not dangerous idea at its time, as it still is in some parts of the Muslim world today. That is why a summary and analysis of this novel, along with its much-forgotten influence on European Enlightenment, is the theme of the first chapter of my forthcoming book, Reopening Muslims Minds: A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance.

--Mustafa Akyol, senior fellow

The Geography of Genius: A Search for the World's Most Creative Places from Ancient Athens to Silicon Valley, by Eric Weiner. I read this book while planning out HumanProgress.org's Centers of Progress series. The author does not provide a satisfying unified theory of what makes a city likely to become a site of "genius," while I would argue that in many cases relative societal openness has been key. But the book is a pleasure to read and contains some fascinating historical details. Vicariously experiencing the author's travels to each city that the book profiles was a nice escape while stuck in quarantine.

--Chelsea Follett, managing editor, HumanProgress.org

The Fighting Bunch: The Battle of Athens and How World War II Veterans Won the Only Successful Armed Rebellion Since the Revolution, by NYT Bestselling Historian (and my friend) Chris DeRose. A great story of how some ragtag GIs fought backincluding literallyagainst a corrupt political machine in their Tennessee hometown.

--Ilya Shapiro, director, Center for Constitutional Studies

Despite indulging in caricature and campy Soviet-era jargon, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (or TMiaHM, as it is affectionately called by fans) delivers an entertaining parable on the hazards of taking lightly legitimate claims to autonomy by people who hold both the moral and the physical high ground. Memo to Earthlings: never pick a fight with people who live on a giant rock at the top of your gravity well.

--Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice

The Sixth Man, by Andre Iguodala. Autobiography of one of the key, but unheralded, NBA players of the past 15 years. Interesting and fun read.

--Jeffrey Miron, director of economic studies

Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2009) [originally published in 1942]. Acclaimed writer Stefan Zweig, who grew up in late 19th-century Vienna, gives an account of his life and of how quickly and unexpectedly the rapid progress, openness, and seeming security that characterized much of Europe came to an end in 1914. Through personal anecdotes and telling observations, he describes the madness of nationalism, the subsequent cataclysms that beset Europe, and the disturbing swiftness with which societies and educated individuals can abandon tolerance and pluralism.

--Ian Vasquez, director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity

I finally read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I regret it took so long. The tale of life for a poor immigrant family in early twentieth century Williamsburg, Brooklyn, put color and flesh on the day-to-day existence of people about whom one ordinarily just reads a perfunctory sentence or two in U.S. history classes. I found it particularly engaging, perhaps, because my own familys American origins would have been very similar.

--Neal McCluskey, director, Center for Educational Freedom

As for me, I hate to seem like a Cato cheerleader, but it's true: The best book I read in 2020 was The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement by my colleague Paul Matzko. He tells the little-known story of conservative talk radio in the 1950s and '60s, how the John F. Kennedy administration used the FCC and the IRS to crush those shows, and then the revival of conservative radio spurred by Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. Not only a good story but a pleasure to read.

See more here:
The Books We Read in 2020 | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

History at the gates – Telegraph India

The remaking of a nation is typically a process that unfolds at a glacial pace over time. A few bellwether events however stand out, both as catalysts of change as well as signs for posterity on how the nation was remade. Siraj-ud-Daulahs defeat at Plassey, the reconstruction amendments after the American Civil War abolishing slavery, Nelson Mandelas release from Robben Island are some events to which historians have attributed special significance in shaping the future course of history of their respective nations.

Whenever India has a government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, there is a narrative that the nation, founded on values of the freedom movement helmed by the Indian National Congress, is being slowly remade. Central to such a narrative is the cultural project of the BJP asserting the rightful place of Hindus in the nation. That project is well-documented and such a national remaking is core to theraison dtreof the BJP. But with the passage of the three farm laws in Parliament, the prime minister has demonstrated a definitive intent to remake the nation economically. Sure, there have always been murmurs that BJP governments have traditionally been best friends of big business. But that is something that can be truthfully said of all major political parties in post-liberalization India. Yet, the farm laws are the boldest and most candid declaration by the BJP that New India will not be founded on amai-baap sarkarbut rather with the hard work of the individual farmer supplemented by the enterprise of the private sector. This is as bold as it is surprising.

At its core is a seriously contested economic argument for farmers prosperity. That Indian agriculture is not as productive as it can be is an acknowledged fact. Small land-holdings, the lack of credit available to farmers, outdated farming methods, scores of middlemen and a skew towards paddy and wheat owing to selective government price support all contribute to this state of affairs. The new laws choose to address one dimension of the problem the dominant role of the State in Indian agriculture.

To this end, one of the new laws ends the monopoly of the governments agricultural produce market committee that runs the localmandi. It gives farmers and traders the freedom to trade in any trade area, including on an electronic platform. The second law, in tandem, empowers farmers to enter into contracts directly with buyers bypassing middlemen who are an endemic feature of Indian agriculture. The third law, an amendment to the Essential Commodities Act, is most revealing it limits governmental intervention in the agricultural market only in extreme cases of war, famine and so on. This, as the government has been at pains to point out, has nothing to do with the minimum support price for paddy and wheat, which is not provided under the Essential Commodities Act. Nonetheless, it is a clear sign of the determination of the government to be a facilitator rather than an active price-setter and regulator of Indian agriculture.

This is a distinct vision of how Indian agriculture can grow from the State-supported model in vogue at present. Central to this vision is the growth of new agri-businesses, which are expected to compete with State procurement processes. Whether such businesses will lead to greater benefits for farmers or worsen their lot is a hypothetical question that can only have hypothetical answers at present. But the bottom line is this the new laws provide options to farmers to either sell to the State in themandior to private producers outside it. Simultaneously, it opens up the sector to a range of private actors whose enterprise is expected to make the system more productive. This combination of individual choice and invitation to enterprise is not primarily an economic argument for reform it is an ideological one.

Economic libertarianism of the kind that underlies the farm laws remove the State from the equation and let the market show the path to prosperity has largely been tangential to traditional Indian right-wing thought. This conflation between the cultural right and the economic right in recent times is a fundamentally American idea born out of a distrust of the State and the championing of limitless individual freedom. The Indian right has never shared this distrust of the State or advocacy of individual liberty. In fact, with the exception of the Swatantra Party, the major intellectual strand of right-wing politics in India, the Jana Sangh and now the BJP moored by the philosophy of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has been that of cultural conservatism together with aswadeshiState that plays a dominant role in the economy. In some senses, that is classic conservative politics as Eric Kaufmann has recently written, Most voters lean left on economics and conservative on culture but no one represents them. This is whom the BJP has traditionally represented, more so with the diminishing political smartness of the Left in India.

But with the farm laws, the BJP has taken a distinct libertarian turn on economics. As a party avowedly resolute about reform, it could have chosen to reform Indian agriculture in a number of ways conclusive land titles for agricultural landowners would have been a game-changer that would increase the creditworthiness of farmers in one stroke. That it chose to whittle down the role of the State, something that it hasnt done despite indications that it would do so to the MGNREGA or to the National Education Policy, is an unraveling of the traditional understanding of the Indian right. From a culturally conservative party, it is also becoming the Indian variant of the Republican Party of the United States of America imbued by the doctrinaire belief that small government is the way to prosperity.

This is why the protests against the three farm laws enacted by the National Democratic Alliance government are the sternest test yet of the resolve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of remaking the nation. The protests against the CAA-NRC, almost a year to the day, despite their largescale support and longevity, made no headway in their objectives. This was unsurprising given the focus of the protests was support for minority groups that are politically unimportant for the BJP. But the farmer protests are an entirely different kettle of fish. After all, thekisanin traditional political terms is theannadata, to be given free electricity and exempted from payment of taxes. Electorally, given that agriculture is the primary source of livelihood of 58 per cent of the Indian population, the vote of the farmer is the holy grail. When faced with such largescale farmer protests, the prime minister was quick to offer compromises with folded hands and bowed heads clause-by-clause readings, amendments and assurances that the MSP would not be touched. Only time will tell whether this is smart politics to fulfil his new economic vision or an unraveling of the vision itself.

Each of the prime ministers offers demonstrates the knife-edge the nation is on at present. In their resolution lies the ultimate answer on whether the farm laws will be a bellwether event in the remaking of the Indian nation or simply yet another footnote in the glacial changes always afoot around us. The Singhu and Tikri borders are no longer mere outposts they are the sites where history is being written.

The author is Research Director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.Views are personal

Go here to see the original:
History at the gates - Telegraph India