| Number 177 | October 25, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
|
This is the LAST WEEK of the Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive! If you haven't sent in your pledge, well, you know the deal: I count on you! There's a little information to encourage you in Item #2 below. Or, just send your check to:
OK, on with the show... |
|
Greetings, As I write these words, I have just heard of the death of Paul Wellstone. I join with many in Minnesota and throughout the nation in grieving the loss of this man and the seven others who died in the plane crash today in Northern Minnesota. I have been critical in recent years of some of his stands, wondering how he could vote for the USA-PATRIOT Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, and wondering why he seemed to have lost his voice on Palestinian human rights. He was far from a perfect Senator, or a perfect progressive. Still, Paul Wellstone, in the midst of a campaign for reelection being held in the midst of the xenophobic hysteria that we call the War Against Terrorism, had the courage to stand up and vote against war. His words in doing so are this week's "Quote" of the Week. His shocking death is a loss to progressive forces throughout the country. My focus this week is the Independence Party candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tim Penny. As you'll soon see, I don't care much for the man, but that is not my real point in writing about him. I simply use him as a timely illustration of how the ideology of Libertarianism looks when it pops up in modern politics in the U.S. I go into the campaign—and how it's being covered in the media—in some detail because I think it's important to understand exactly how a consummate politician presents himself to the public without revealing what is really quite an extreme agenda. This week I start the process; I'll give a few more specific details next week. Thanks to those of you who have sent in your pledges of support to the Notes! You'll be getting your official receipt before long, telling you that I am not a non-profit so you can't deduct your contribution from your taxes. (It will also include a nice Thank You!) I really appreciate the support, even if I am statutorily prohibited from helping you reduce your tax liability. Maybe that day will come... In sadness and solidarity, Nygaard |
|
|
Alert readers might have noticed an apparent paradox when reading the "Beyond Good and Evil" two-part series that just concluded last week. How can I argue against a dualistic approach, on the one hand, and then turn around and set up two distinct philosophies and argue in favor of one over the other? That certainly seems like a paradox, and here's my response: I am not so much arguing for the specific "other" philosophy as I am arguing for a different, dynamic process that would open up many new possibilities. What those possibilities are I can't say. It's how we go about it that is important to me. Which "choice" we decide to support or defend—all of us, working together—will likely change as conditions change. This can't happen in an "either/or" world. We have to line up on one "side" or the other. In a sense, one could say that I was advocating what has been called "dialectics," although I try not to use such big words with such big connotations attached to them. At some point in the future (when I write my book?) I will talk more formally about the usefulness of a dialectical approach to understanding current events and the history that produces them. But, for now, suffice it to say that I do not want people to simply substitute "my" philosophy for "their" philosophy. The point is to be more dynamic in our thinking, and to learn to live with ambiguity and complexity—in all their astounding manifestations!—and to somehow stay in touch with our highest and best impulses and values. Here's how life is, I think: We do something, we reflect on what we did and consider how our action has produced a new situation, then we do something else. We never "get there," and it never ends. We don't "eliminate evil," nor do we succumb to it. In that sense, we move "Beyond Good and Evil," and live in the real world. |
|
Back in Nygaard Notes #145 I said, "While our Governor has up until now been famous for being a professional wrestler, perhaps he's finally beginning to develop a reputation for being an ill-informed ideologue trying to push a right-wing Libertarian agenda on the state of Minnesota." Then I said, "You can expect more on the Governor in these pages as Election 2002 approaches." I lied. Jesse is not running for re-election, so you won't see any more on the Governor in these pages. However, his choice for a successor is a very interesting man named Tim Penny. He's interesting, and important, because he illustrates very well a little-noted phenomenon that we will be dealing with far beyond the current election. That phenomenon is the rise of Libertarianism in the U.S.A. Let's have a look. What is Libertarianism? Although I've mentioned the political philosophy of Libertarianism on numerous occasions in these pages (even referring to our governor as Jesse "The Libertarian" Ventura!) I haven't spent too much time defining it. In a nutshell, "libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people," according to a prominent libertarian website. That simple sentiment is pretty hard to argue with for many people, at least until you learn about what this means in practice (which I'll get to in a moment, and will continue next week). I have written recently about the dangers of "fetishizing" Freedom. (I described this as one of the "Three Pillars of American Ideology" in Nygaard Notes #146, "Fetishes, Cults, and Infinite Possibilities," if you want to go to the website and take a look). Libertarians are the ultimate fetishizers of Freedom in this culture—I mean, look at their name!—and that's saying a lot. Why are they so preoccupied with individual Freedom? I don't want to go into it here, but you can read their own words by going to one of their websites, for example www.libertarian.org/ or www.free-market.net/. By focusing on Individual Liberty, Libertarians come out with a set of political positions that they will tell you are neither "left" nor "right." That is correct, I think, because those terms have no real meaning (as I argued in NN Numbers 111-114). Some people say that Libertarians are on the "left" on social issues and on the "right" on economic ones, but a lot of self-described "leftists" would argue with that. For example, Libertarians would like to repeal drug laws, immigration laws, and any laws about sex between consenting adults. They oppose government censorship of any kind, the military draft, and laws telling people what they can and can't do in private. A lot of "lefties" would agree with those positions, certainly. But their obsession with Individual Liberty also leads them to oppose such things as affirmative action, hate crimes laws, public education, welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are all examples of unwarranted intrusion by the government, in their view. On the economic front, Libertarians oppose taxes on income or wealth, minimum wage laws, public subsidies of any sort (including all "foreign aid"), and taxes on business. They actually oppose, in principle, all taxes, preferring to have each individual pay out-of-pocket for everything they want, rich and poor alike. Libertarians, in short, adhere perhaps the most closely to the"IC," or Individualist and Competitive, ideology to which I have taken such great exception in these pages of late. The "Sensible Center" Tim Penny, Independence Party candidate for Governor of Minnesota, is—by all indications—a Libertarian. Yet, astonishingly, he has chosen to portray himself as someone who would govern "from where most Minnesotans are – in the sensible center." [That's from the official Tim Penny campaign website; emphasis in original.] Even more astonishing to me is that he seems to be getting away with it. Mr. Penny was a U.S. Congressman for a number of years until 1995, and he called himself a Democrat in those days. He was always a "conservative" Democrat, however (and he probably had to be, or else he wouldn't have been re-elected in the conservative 2nd District of southern Minnesota.) Back in his Congress days he was known as an ardent proponent of a "balanced budget." Shortly after he left Congress, TIME Magazine, for example, described him as "a budget-cutting Democrat," and he reinforced that idea by soon joining up with the king of the balanced-budget hill, the Concord Coalition (www.concordcoalition.org/). Although Mr. Penny has continually advocated for a "balanced budget" over the years, I am skeptical that the budget was his main concern. For one thing, he was a "budget hawk" even in years of massive surplus. It seems much more plausible to me that his agenda was the standard Libertarian one of shrinking the capacity of government so that it cannot afford to "intrude" into our lives. Pushing for a "balanced budget" is one way to do this, albeit a somewhat sneaky way. If my theory is true, then we should expect that Mr. Penny would support serious cutbacks or eliminations of government programs, in line with the Libertarian agenda of "small government." And so he does. Some of the federal programs that Mr. Penny specifically recommended for reductions and budget cuts when he was a Congressman (in the so-called "Penny-Kasich Bill" of 1993) were: Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental cleanup, and "a host of other projects and policies." Don't take my word for it; this list comes from Mr. Penny's 1996 book, "Payment Due: A Nation in Debt, A Generation in Trouble." That book also gives a hint as to Penny's willingness to choose his targets in line with prevailing political realities. Penny wrote, "Social Security cuts were desirable but remained politically suicidal in 1993. Reducing other entitlements, however, would put the spotlight on Social Security when it came time for future cuts." Penny's views since leaving Congress in 1995 have become even more extreme, appearing ever more consistent with the Libertarian point of view. I'll give many details next week to illustrate where the Libertarian philosophy leads in the real world of politics. (He may be our next Governor, after all.) I'll also look at how a political extremist goes about disguising his program, along with my theory of why so many people seem to be falling for his claim to represent the "sensible center." Whatever that is. |